Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL By Order

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 2 February.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday 6 February at Seven o'clock.

MAZE PRISON

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Report of an Inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the security arrangements HM Prison, Maze, relative to the escape on Sunday 25th September 1983 including relevant recommendations for the improvement of security at HM Prison, Maze.—[Mr. Prior.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Sinn Fein

Mr. Beggs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now proscribe Sinn Fein.

Mr. John David Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscibe Provisional Sinn Fein; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): This is kept under constant review; and the Government are considering what other measures can be taken to improve the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism and of the enforcement of the law against incitement to violence.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State concede that recent disclosures on "World in Action" show that Irish Republican terrorists and Sinn Fein support each other, and that both maintain recruitment through their propaganda campaign and through terror? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take the limited step of banning the spokesmen of organisations which encourage violence from furthering their aims and objectives on radio and television?

Mr. Prior: That last suggestion would be very difficult for me to take up, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter and in particular on the "World in Action" programme to which he refers. There are problems associated with the production of admissible evidence in such cases. However, the Royal Lister Constabulary is studying carefully the recordings of that programme and if, as a result, the Director of Public Prosecutions finds grounds for prosecution, charges will be brought against those concerned.

Mr. Malone: Does my right hon. Friend agree that TV-AM acted in a thoroughly irresponsible manner in granting an interview to Mr. Gerry Adams in which he was able to peddle his message of hatred and violence? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to urge broadcasting authorities to exercise more responsibly their discretion over such interviews?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. In general, I agree with my hon. Friend. I urge the television and radio authorities to act responsibly. However, I considered that the "World in Action" programme was extremely good in that it showed what the man really is.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that nothing would be solved by proscribing Sinn Fein? The political and economic problems of Northern Ireland would remain. Some terrorists are completely opposed to the type of work: that Sinn Fein is doing — other than the things it is accused of doing—and in any case, if proscribed, they would go under ground and stay in Northern Ireland in some other way.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is broadly speaking correct. However, it would help enormously if he stated quite firmly that Provisional Sinn Fein must renounce violence before anyone can talk to it and before it can be treated in a normal democratic way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that one structure covers both Sinn Fein and the IRA, and that at a recent conference, reported in the "World in Action" film, there was a closed session at which people cheered loudly when it was announced that another service man had been gunned down by the IRA? As the Secretary of State has proscribed the IRA, should he not take another step and proscribe something which is really another part of the IRA?

Mr. Prior: We keep that matter under careful review. However, we must assess all the consequences of taking such a step. In that respect, I have that particular conference very much in mind.

Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State agree that our profound and passionate disagreement with the views of a political party, however odious we may believe that party to be, is not a reason for preventing it from expressing them? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that if someone counsels or procures the commission of a criminal offence he may be prosecuted under the existing law? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although we all completely condemn terrorism, terrorist activities are not best prevented by stopping people from taking part in constitutional political discussion?

Mr. Prior: We utterly condemn violent people masquerading under the banner of democracy and democratic rights. That is what we must deal with in the case of the Provisional Sinn Fein. If it renounced violence, many people would be prepared to talk to it. However, while it has the gun in one hand and the ballot box in the other, no respectable politician should have anything to do with it.

Prison Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he intends to introduce to improve security in prisons in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement to the House on this matter later this afternoon.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister undertake to review the changes made in the regime of prisons in the aftermath of the hunger strike? Those changes did much to cause confusion and to undermine the confidence and morale of the prison service.

Mr. Scott: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be dealing with that point in his statement later this afternoon. However, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's underlying premise.

Mr. McCusker: On the assumption that the Minister is satisfied with security at the Maze at present, which of the procedures which were dismantled in the aftermath of the hunger strike have been reintroduced following the escape?

Mr. Scott: I must leave all those matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his statement.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total annual level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is estimated at £2,437 for the current year. This excludes expenditure in Northern Ireland which falls outside the area of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Canavan: Although no one would grudge extra public expenditure on items such as helping the unemployed, in view of the higher incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland, how much longer does the hon. Gentleman think the British taxpayer will tolerate a situation whereby public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland is far in excess of that in any other part of the United Kingdom? One of the reasons for that is that per head of population in Northern Ireland security costs alone are now approaching £100 per annum. How long will the Government keep propping up an unstable gerrymandered Province which should never have been founded in the first place?

Mr. Butler: The reasons for that high expenditure per head of population are social and economic, and certainly reflect the security situation. If the hon. Gentleman intends to ask United Kingdom citizens about their view of expenditure in disadvantaged regions, he should also ask them about Scotland. Expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is only one fifth higher than it is in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the United Kingdom, where there are problems reflecting the security of our military establishments inevitably there will be increased costs and that, equally, the people who are camping outside the submarine bases in the Clyde will add to our costs?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has made his point, and I am sure that the House has heard it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to give the corresponding figures for the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?

Mr. Canavan: We do not want to kill each other in Falkirk, West.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: But the hon. Gentleman's constituency gets the public money.

Mr. Butler: I cannot give the expenditure figures per head for the constituency of Falkirk, West, but I am glad that, although the unemployment level at 16 per cent. is high, it is considerably below the average in the Province.

Rev. William McCrea: The House must accept that expenditure in Northern Ireland is high because of the security problems, but does the Minister agree that people in Northern Ireland would be delighted if the massive expenditure on security were to be set aside by the annihilation of the IRA and the problem of our land?

Mr. Butler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There would be great cause for rejoicing if that happened. There would be equal cause for rejoicing if the other social and economic problems of the Province were brought down at least to the average in the United Kingdom, because the high expenditure per head would not then be necessary. At the moment that expenditure is necessary, and it will continue to be provided.

Youth Training

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of youngsters completing the youth training programme in Northern Ireland are now in full-time employment.

Mr. Butler: Information maintained does not distinguish between those completing their training and those leaving early. However, during the last quarter of 1983, of those young people who left the youth training programme and whose destinations are known, 53 per cent. went straight into employment.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister realise that I find that figure difficult to understand or believe, especially as he has admitted in recent weeks that it would require too much form-filling by employers in Northern Ireland to determine how many 16 and 17-year-olds are in employment? If only two fifths of youngsters in Britain as a whole obtain jobs after going through the youth training schemes, how can the Minister monitor the effectiveness of training if he does not know how many youngsters are in employment?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is referring to questions for written answer put down by him on the ages of individuals. We keep records of those who come under what we call the guaranteed year, which is the first year after leaving school, and those in the next year. I assure him that my reply is correct. I should like the figure to be higher. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give at least some credit to the youth training programme for producing what is, in today's circumstances, a good result. We do undertake monitoring, but in a way that differs from what the hon. Gentleman would like.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept the underlying implication and accusation of my hon. Friend's question? Is it not a fact that the problem is that post-school people have neither jobs nor education? When will the Government produce a scheme which provides either education or jobs for people in that age group?

Mr. Butler: The accusation of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was that I was not giving the right answer, but the answer was correct. It demonstrated that, at least in the case of more than half of the trainees, the youth training programme is doing a good job in providing the skills that make them more qualified for employment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister inform the House of the percentage paid by Europe towards the youth training schemes in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Butler: I would require notice of that question before answering, but there is some benefit and we are glad to receive it.

Assembly

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is currently being given to the transformation of the Northern Ireland Assembly into a regional council with local government powers in order to provide administrative devolution.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to address a meeting of the Ulster Assembly.

Miss Maynard: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had since Christmas with political leaders in the Province.

Mr. Prior: In recent weeks I have had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland constitutional party leaders. I have listened carefully to their suggestions for political development in the Province, including suggestions for the devolution of administrative functions to locally elected representatives. The Government remain of the view that any such arrangements must enjoy widespread support across the community if they are to be stable and durable. I regret that the Ulster Unionist party has withdrawn from the Assembly and I urge it and the SDLP to take their places. Meanwhile, the Assembly continues. I have no plans to address it at present.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate that he wishes to obtain widespread community support for his plans, but does he agree that administrative devolution to a local authority, which may come from the Assembly, thus turning it into a regional assembly, may be a way forward which would command widespread support in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: That remains to be seen. I do not necessarily rule out the possibility of some changes which could be helpful to the Northern Ireland community generally if we could obtain agreement on them.

Mr. Hal Miller: When my right hon. Friend next talks to political leaders, or has the opportunity to address the Assembly, will he take the opportunity to explain why permission was given for the change in the name of the Londonderry district authority?

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that I shall have a number of opportunities to explain that in the next few weeks. The Local Government Act 1972 clearly provides that district councils may apply for their names to be changed—and it is the district council. The city council made it very clear over a period of time that it desired the change. Recognising the sensitivities of the case, and having listened to a range of representations over a considerable period, the Government thought it right in this case to accede to the council's request.

Miss Maynard: Does the Secretary of State accept that the horrific problems of Northern Ireland will not be solved within the context of the present Northern Ireland state, that the violence springs from the fact that we divided Ireland without the consent of the Irish people, that that violence requires a political solution and that we shall not be able to get down to the politics until the Unionist veto is withdrawn? Will he give favourable consideration to that?

Mr. Prior: That point of view is frequently put to me, but I must tell the House that I am absolutely certain that there can be no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland within the foreseeable future. I make that absolutely clear. Those who suggest otherwise do not help the many constitutional nationalists who may wish for a different solution but who know perfectly well that without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland it will simply not be forthcoming.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of the strange present condition of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will my right hon. Friend receive and consider ideas on administrative devolution being prepared by several of his hon. Friends with due regard both for unionist aspirations and for nationalist anxieties?

Mr. Prior: I am of course, prepared to look at any sensible proposals which meet the broad criteria that we have laid down. I have made that absolutely clear on a number of occasions to deputations which have come to see me. I must, however, insist and advise the House that unless there is a willingness by the minority as well to accept the proposals put forward they simply will not work. One of the difficulties is that it was the local government route which was so despised and was the original cause of so many of the problems which we now face.

Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State admit at last that from the very beginning, and even before he announced his proposals publicly, the SDLP told him that no Unionist party would accept the terms that he was laying down for devolution of power and that therefore the Assembly would not work? Will he thank the SDLP for its honesty, because if our advice had been taken he would not have wasted the last 18 months on a useless initiative?

Mr. Prior: I am afraid I cannot accept that. The whole purpose of the Assembly in its first instance was to enable people of very different and entrenched views to discover what they had in common, and many of them have a great deal in common in Northern Ireland, including the preservation of peace. I believe that if the SDLP had taken part in that Assembly it would have had a lot more influence on the Unionist party than it has been able to have from outside.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that considerably more hope for the future of Northern Ireland comes from the Northern Ireland Assembly than from the talks taking place in another jurisdiction, in which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is taking part? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consideration is presently being given to the setting up of a Report Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to discharge one of the functions that he set it under the 1982 Act?
Will he tell the House in what way he can give support and back-up to the Assembly in the Report Committee? Will he assure the House that the change of the name of the city council of Londonderry to Derry will go through the Assembly by way of an Order in Council and not a statutory rule, and that the House will also have the opportunity to debate and give a verdict on that matter?

Mr. Prior: I think that the Assembly has done some extremely good work. If the Report Committee is set up—I hope that it will be—we shall seek to give it what help we can. I believe, though, that only the people of Northern Ireland themselves, whether they are unionists or constitutional nationalists, can actually prepare and advance the ground for devolution and for a greater say in their own affairs. I think that the Assembly provides them with an opportunity to do so.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people consider that his failure when he established the Assembly to give any meaningful consideration to the aspirations of the SDLP, which

prevented it from joining the Assembly, in fact so undermined the SDLP's position that in very many ways the success of Provisional Sinn Fein in the election could be laid at the right hon. Gentleman's door?

Mr. Prior: I think that that would be a grossly unfair position to adopt and I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for taking it. The SDLP was very suspicious that the terms written into the 1982 Act would not protect it from an old-type Stormont. I should have thought that everything I have said and everything that has happened since show that the Government were not prepared to put proposals to this House for devolution until and unless there was widespread acceptance throughout the community. That acceptance must mean that the minority themselves are agreeable to the sort of proposals that we have made.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Minister consider, in view of his reference to consent, setting up a conference of organisations north and south of the border in order to draw up a new constitution for a united Ireland?

Mr. Prior: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if he believes that Act is an option, he knows very little about Northern Ireland.

Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that nothing could be less helpful than for him to say to the constitutional nationalist parties that there is no hope for a constitutional change whatsoever? Everyone accepts that there is no hope for a Northern Ireland settlement without consent from the 1 million unionists and the 4 million nationalists in the island of Ireland, but the Assembly itself was in fact a constitutional change and one which was bitterly resisted by both unionists and nationalists. We ought to recognise that and make it clear that other changes in the constitution are needed, and those might be necessary in the face of resistance from some parts of the community.

Mr. Prior: I have made it perfectly plain that if there is a widespread wish for changes to the Assembly this House and the Government will consider them, but I stand by the general criteria laid down in the 1982 Act. All I can say about constitutional change is that the Labour party is committed to no constitutional change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people. It knows as well as I do that that consent is simply not forthcoming, and that is what must be understood.

Newtownabbey (Roads)

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial provision was made for roads in Newtownabbey borough for the current financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The provision, exclusive of street lighting and car parking, is £1·6 million.

Mr. Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient funds are being made available for this area, bearing in mind that as recently as November 140 street lights were not working, that some of them had been off for as long as two years and that in the recent bad weather very little road gritting and clearing was done in the Carnmoney, Glengormley and Collinbridge areas? Indeed, one gentleman was unable to go to hospital because the ambulance could not get to his home, as road gritting had not been carried out.

Mr. Patten: I know how much interest the hon. Gentleman has taken in this subject, since he was a distinguished mayor of the district council. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, within an overall smaller roads budget for next year, we shall be spending more on minor works and maintenance, and I am sure that some of that will be spent in his constituency. I shall look as a matter of some urgency into the problem of street lighting.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any change in mind for the name of the council of Newtownabbey other than that mentioned on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary is very wide of the main question.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it not be to the advantage of Northern Ireland and of the hon. Gentleman in his office if in Northern Ireland there were local councillors of local authorities who were responsible for the administration of street lighting and roads, as in the rest of the kingdom?

Mr. Patten: There are, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, some proposals — for example, on handing over responsibility in an agency capacity for car parking—at present being considered by the association of local authorities of Northern Ireland. We have not yet received a response to those proposals, but I am sure that in due course a response will come, and then we shall be able to give the matter our normal constructive consideration.

Republic of Ireland (Co-operation)

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present level of co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Prior: I have at present no plans to meet Dr. FitzGerald, but I met the Irish Minister for Justice, Mr. Noonan, on 10 January. I expect to meet Irish Ministers from time to time within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council to review matters of common concern. I am satisfied with the present level of co-operation in economic, social, cultural and security matters between the two countries.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that in any discussions the right hon. Gentleman's mind must be in possession of the knowledge that there is an Assembly in Northern Ireland which can hardly be called an Assembly — because it does not work in that it is incomplete because some of the Unionists do not attend and because the representatives of the minority community do not attend—and that in Southern Ireland there is a so-called All-Ireland Forum which is in the same parlous position, where representatives from the North do not attend? Is it not possible for us somehow, without going the whole hog, to try to think along the lines mentioned by Churchill when he said,
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war",
and try to bring together the leaders of the North, who are sitting behind me here, and the leaders of the South, the Government, to discuss the parlous economic position of

the whole of Ireland and the politics of the situation? At some time they will have to talk together, and the British people are getting weary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] — of the whole business, and it is time — [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question is already over-long.

Mr. Prior: I am all for jaw-jaw and I have spent a great deal of time jaw-jawing in Northern Ireland and shall continue to do so. Good relations with the Republic of Northern Ireland are an important part of that.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that co-operation present and future, after the Forum report, will be largely determined by the realistic acceptance of the Government in the Republic of the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland — that it is part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of its citizens wish it to be so?

Mr. Prior: If that could be accepted, there would be open to us a range of measures which would enable the minority to exercise their identity and traditions in a way completely acceptable to the peoples of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about his discussions with Mr. Noonan when he met him in Dublin? Did they talk about the taking of hostages in the South and about greater co-operation between the British and Irish Governments to arraign the people who carry out such villainous deeds?

Mr. Prior: The talks were private and were about security and common interests. They did not relate to any issue of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we had a wide-ranging review of all that we can do to co-operate better to defeat terrorism and to stop kidnapping and similar activities.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although a closer relationship between the North and South in Ireland would create a considerable financial burden for the North and would have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a case for the formation of an Anglo-Irish Council? Would my right hon. Friend give that proposal a fair wind in Parliament?

Mr. Prior: That is a matter for the House and Parliament, not for me. Provided that the council sought to bring about a closer understanding of the problems of the North and the South, it could do nothing but good.

Mr. McCusker: Further to the reply which the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), if he meets Dr. Garret FitzGerald will he remind him of the constitutional crusade that he launched three years ago? It sought to delete the offensive articles 2 and 3 from the Irish Republic's constitution. Does he agree that, had they been deleted, it would have led to a new relationship between the two parts of Ireland, which might have bred good neighbourliness, to the advantage of everyone living on the island?

Mr. Prior: Dr. FitzGerald knows only too well that those two articles are regarded as the stumbling block to the sort of relationship which the hon. Gentleman and I wish to see.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Was the Secretary of State co-operating with the Government of the Irish Republic when he approved the change in the name of the city of Londonderry's council? Will he proceed by statutory rule, or by Order in Council?

Mr. Prior: That has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall proceed in the correct way. I shall let him know as soon as I can which way I shall proceed.

Mr. Archer: I do not ask the Secretary of State to commit himself in advance of the Forum report, but may I ask him to consider seriously whether any proposals that emerge can be made the subject of discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic and of any party in the North that can be persuaded to respond? Will he at least announce his recognition that there are some interests which all the people of these islands have in common and consider, for example, the recent report by Co-operation North on industrial development?

Mr. Prior: The people of these islands have many interests in common. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government will keep an open mind about the Forum report and try to respond to it, if it is in a form to which we can respond. We await the report with anxiety and hope.

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation on the border and the protection of Protestant churches.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 8 December, one member of the RUC, three members of the UDR and three civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. Two incidents were in border areas. In the opinion of the security forces these can best be countered by continuing covert operations and good professional relations with the Garda. But they also recognise the value of more visible security in the form of foot and mobile patrols and vehicle checks, which help to reassure those living there. Indeed, the security forces have provided those covert and oven security measures at and near Protestant churches after discussions with the clergy and other church representatives. All those matters are being carefully reviewed and any necessary measures till be taken during the next few weeks.
With tremendous courage and determination, members of the security forces continue to pursue terrorists. During 1983 more than 600 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 75 with murder and 60 with attempted murder. The security forces will maintain their efforts to the full during 1984.

Mr. Proctor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he ensure that there is a uniformly high level of security along the frontier so that, for example, the provisions that operate in Fermanagh—the blocking of as many roads as possible and the guarding of fewer crossing points—operate also in Armagh?

Mr. Prior: The House will be interested to know that the Army is carrying out a full review of all crossing points on the border. It will consider carefully other matters, such as the guarding of intersections, to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I appreciate what the security forces did in the wake of the Darkley murders, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two mobile support units from the RUC have now been completely withdrawn from that area? Is he further aware that those attending isolated Protestant churches are very apprehensive about security? Will he give us some details of the number of open crossings into the Irish Republic in that area and will he take steps to close them?

Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of crossings, and I hope to give further details on those that can be closed within a few weeks. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, there has been some withdrawal of police and troops from the Darkley and border area during the past few weeks. That withdrawal is not permanent; it will be matched by occasions when the police and troops return to the area to create the maximum amount of surprise and flexibility.

Mr. Maginnis: Although we welcome the Secretary of State's statement about reviewing security on the frontier, does he agree that it is rather odd that this should happen after 14 years of violence? Should security not be an ongoing operation rather than the stop-go system which reacts to terrorist violence?

Mr. Prior: It would be wrong to say that it is a stop-go system. Security policy is constantly reviewed, and this is a further review.

Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State have any plans to ban civilians working in security installations in Northern Ireland from membership of trade unions? As a major recipient of intelligence gathered by Cheltenham, was he consulted by the Foreign Secretary before his statement yesterday, and has the right hon. Gentleman made representations in recent years in support of yesterday's proposal?

Mr. Skinner: No, because Reagan has not told him yet.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is ingenious, but that question must be answered by someone else.

Security Forces (Loyalist Paramilitary Groups)

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider establishing an inquiry into possible links between the security forces in Northern Ireland and Loyalist paramilitary groups.

Mr. Scott: No, Sir. The RUC already investigates any reports of illegal association with thoroughness and urgency, whomsoever they may involve.

Mr. Fatchett: Do recent alleged cases of links between the Ulster Defence Regiment and Loyalist paramilitary organisations not undermine people's faith and confidence in the security forces? Would not a public inquiry be the best way of resolving the fears, so that people can have faith in the security forces and know the extent of the links between the UDR and the paramilitary organisations?

Mr. Scott: It is certainly no part of my job to comment upon individual cases which are subject to the judicial process. I shall do nothing to undermine the confidence of the public of Northern Ireland in the UDR as a whole, which does a first-class job on behalf of the community there.

Civil Service

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to eliminate the religious imbalance in the Northern Ireland Civil Service reported by the Fair Employment Agency.

Mr. Butler: The Fair Employment Agency report of 8 December 1983 shows that the Northern Ireland Civil Service practises fair recruitment and promotion procedures and that both communities are now actively seeking employment in the service. These factors can be expected to accelerate the closing over recent years of the gap in the ratios between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The main recommendations in the report will now be discussed in detail with the agency and the trade unions.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that it is still the case that 70 per cent. of those employed in local government or Government circles in Northern Ireland are Protestant and 30 per cent. are Roman Catholic? That proportion should be changed. Does he agree that more Catholics should be employed as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my reply, the gap has been closing over recent years and there is every reason to suppose that it will continue to close.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Shortly after Questions I shall be departing for Rome for talks with the Italian Prime Minister.

Mr. Dubs: In the light of yesterday's announcement about GCHQ, can the Prime Minister explain why a civil servant automatically ceases to be a security risk if he or she accepts £1,000 in return for giving up a trade union membership card?

The Prime Minister: The question is much deeper than that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been the practice under all Governments to exempt those who work in intelligence agencies from the privilege of joining a union. Legislation has provided for it. Until 1983 the work of GCHQ was never acknowledged as that of an intelligence agency. No previous Government had acknowledged it as such. For reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it became necessary to acknowledge it in the middle of 1983. After that it seemed reasonable and right to bring the practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.

Mr. Kinnock: As someone who completely shares the Prime Minister's commitment to national security, may I

tell her that civil servants at GCHQ have civil rights and that there is no justification for the removal of those civil rights because of anything that occurred in 1983, or before or since? As the Minister responsible for security matters, will she confirm now that she will belatedly meet the trade unions? Can she tell us how she will justify to them action that can only be described as dictatorial and not to be expected of a British Prime Minister? Was it not shameful and shamefaced—[Interruption.] It is a matter of basic civil rights for the people of this country. Loyal and patriotic civil servants are being abused by the Government. Is the shameful and shamefaced decision on GCHQ not just another pathetic example of the way in which the right hon. Lady is willing to surrender British interest to American pressure?

The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. There was no American intervention of any kind in this decision. The reasons were as I have given. They were heightened by the fact that in national Civil Service strikes in 1979 and 1981 there was a strike by certain services at GCHQ. It is absolutely vital that, where we are dealing with that kind of intelligence, the operation is continuous 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is a heightened reason for taking the action we took. There is no new point of principle. It is bringing practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of American pressure, I wish that we had a polygraph here, no matter how unreliable they are. If there was no American pressure, does that not make the Government's decision even less easy to defend? For 40 years these highly trained and highly dependable civil servants have given continuous service. Where is the evidence that the withdrawal of the right to belong to a trade union can secure or guarantee continuity without strike or disruption if workers in a democracy have a justifiable grievance at their place of work?

The Prime Minister: I find what the right hon. Gentleman said about my comments about the United States very offensive. There was no intervention of any sort. The action that we have taken was reasonable once the intelligence agency was avowed. It was even more necessary because of the fact that GCHQ was selected — it has many computers — for special action by a national Civil Service union. That will not occur again when one has an association of people who work at GCHQ. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman places great importance on the security of the United Kingdom. I cannot stress too much that it is vital that this operational agency be kept going 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Lady agree that this country is worth defending, and that one of the most important reasons for so doing is the range of liberties that are exercised by its citizens? Why is she slurring civil servants, if she is so easily offended herself, by making the accusation that they cannot be depended upon to give the continuity of work upon which Britain's security depends?

The Prime Minister: I am not slurring civil servants. The previous Labour Government did not slur the other intelligence services by denying those who worked in them the right to belong to a trade union. The denial of that right has always been accepted. It was through the


circumstances of a security commission report that I avowed the work of the intelligence agency at GCHQ. All Governments have accepted that members of the security force should not belong to national trade unions. I believe that that has been a correct decision and it is one which we have now followed. The workers at GCHQ will still have rights of representation by a staff association. They will be able to appeal to the Civil Service appeals procedure, which many civil servants already use in preference to industrial tribunals.

Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister must be more aware than most in the House that it is quite unrealistic to compare MI5 and MI6 with the establishment at Cheltenham. Does she agree that one can have a certificate of exception under the employment protection legislation and retain membership of a trade union? Is she aware that the objection to her proposal is that she has exempted trade unionists? It would be possible to achieve a no-strike agreement. Membership of a staff association does not prevent striking. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, in the national interest, it would have been far better to concentrate on achieving a no-strike agreement, which is a legitimate security demand?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is vital that the agency is kept going at all times if we are to have the secure intelligence that we need. That is vital for Britain's security. If the civil servants were able to join a national trade union, that union could draw them out on strike even if there were no dispute between the employers at GCHQ and the workers. That is what happened in 1979 and 1981, when some 10,000 working days were lost. That may happen again if the civil servants belong to a national trade union. As I have said, that did happen. A no-strike agreement for a particular section would not deal with the problem of union officers outside GCHQ having to negotiate on behalf of staff about whose detailed work they could not be fully informed.

Mr. Charles Morrison: In view of the Prime Minister's anxiety about trends in welfare spending, as reflected in her interview with the New York Times, will she say what long-term consideration is being given to the future of the welfare state and, in particular, whether there is a possibility of the introduction of a tax credit scheme?

The Prime Minister: The trends in welfare spending are affecting all OECD countries. The OECD has put out useful papers, one of which, this year, is a summary of a much longer one issued last year. It will be discussed at the next OECD meeting in Paris. The real problem in this country will come when the earnings-related pensions begin to mature. Hon. Members will remember that the scheme was started in 1978 and that it matures in 1998. We run a scheme which is pay-as-you-go, so the money is being paid in and paid out in the same year, and a capital fund is not accruing. We must look at it in good time.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: If, as the Prime Minister implied a few moments ago, apparatus of the utmost national security and importance at Cheltenham has been either not operated continuously or disconnected, would it not be wholly inappropriate to describe such action as industrial action, and much more appropriate to describe it as treason? In those circumstances, is not my right hon. Friend's action wholly justifiable?

The Prime Minister: It is part of my task to see that this country obtains the necessary intelligence for security purposes. I believe that the action we have taken will help to achieve that objective.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that those employed—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been dealing very fairly with the House. I called a great many hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, and I am now balancing up.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that those employed at the Government communication headquarters at Cheltenham are just as much in the front line as our armed forces? Is it not true that the Foreign Secretary, who put forward these measures, is acting under the Employment Protection Act introduced by the Labour Government for precisely this purpose? Is it not clear that Labour Members have not a leg to stand on in this regard?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. The action was taken under certain sections of the Employment Protection Act which exist for that purpose.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that I agree that it is absolutely necessary to keep GCHQ going but that I believe that the action Government took is wrong? The right hon. Lady calls in aid what happened in 1981. I have checked Hansard for those years, and I find that the former Secretary of State, Sir John Nott, made it absolutely clear that the strike had not in any way affected the operational capability in any area. He went on to praise the loyalty of the Civil Service. [Interruption.] What evidence is there that, in 1981, the GCHQ was made inoperable by this trade union?

The Prime Minister: The evidence is that some 10,000 working days were lost in intelligence signals operations, where it is absolutely vital to have continuity. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, a number of people were out on strike then and we do not know what information we lost.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: When the Prime Minister talks, rightly, about the need to maintain operations at GCHQ, why does she not think about the morale of the staff who have been affected by this decision—the thousands of loyal civil servants? Does she realise that this comes on top of the attempt to impose the notoriously inaccurate polygraph system in the pilot scheme at GCHQ, instead of spending money on the employment of sufficient people to carry out the security measures that are really needed?

The Prime Minister: The polygraph experiment was advocated by the Security Commission and its recommendation of a pilot experiment was accepted. Some of the employees found other methods of searching even more offensive and did not take to them. Moreover, due to the numbers employed, it was not possible to carry out the type of searches that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a group of Members of Parliament visited Greenham


common earlier this week, Labour Members chose to posture outside in front of television cameras rather than attend briefings on the facts?
Is she further aware that hon. Members who studied the systems and the safeguards were impressed by them? Does she think that there are persuasive arguments for promoting more knowledge of the systems and safeguards, perhaps by allowing television camera and newspaper access to Greenham common, so that more people can be

made aware of the facts, thus counteracting the wildly misleading statements of people who have a view of defence which is different from ours?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that after the visit he and other Conservative Members who attended the briefing will be able to help to get the facts out. All of our people realise that this is part of the deterrent which defends Britain's freedoms.

Maze Prison (Hennessy Report)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report, published today, by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, on his inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison Maze bearing on the escape on Sunday 25 September 1983 and on action I have taken following that report.
I should like first to record my gratitude to Sir James's Hennessy and his colleagues for the way they undertook their inquiry and for their thorough and comprehensive report. I am publishing it in full save for a small number of deletions which are clearly marked and which have been made for security reasons only.
The Maze prison holds the largest concentration of terrorists anywhere in western Europe. It is, in Sir James's words
a prison without parallel in the United Kingdom, unique in size, and in the continuity and tenacity of its protests and disturbances. In no other prison that we have seen",
he said,
have the problems faced by the authorities been so great.
Sir James goes on to point out that its population is unlike that of any other prison, and he says:
Nowhere else in the United Kingdom have there been such prolonged and wide scale protests of so horrendous a nature.
He records that 22 members of the prison service have lost their lives through terrorist action, including a deputy governor and others from the Maze. I know the House will join with me in paying tribute to them. As we consider the lessons to be learnt from the blackest day in the troubled history of the Northern Ireland prison service, let us not forget the unique demands which we put on that service.
The report describes the escape from the Maze in detail. The broad outline which I gave the House on 24 October stands. The report draws attention to the careful planning of a small group of prisoners and to the outside help they received, particularly through the smuggling in of five guns. It also shows the ruthlessness of the prisoners, who stabbed one prison officer to death and seriously injured five others.
The report is extremely critical of many aspects of security at the Maze. The House will regard these failings with the utmost seriousness. The report points to three main areas where security was inadequate: first, physical weaknesses, in particular in the communications rooms in the H blocks and at the main gate; secondly, poor security procedures, in particular inadequate searching, unsatisfactory control of visits, and flaws in the control of prisoner movement, in the selection of orderlies, and in the arrangements for responding to alarms; and, thirdly, failures by individuals who were negligent or who did not carry out their duties. The report shows that staff at the Maze were complacent about security and that there was widespread laxness and carelessness in the performance of duties at both supervisory and other levels. This conclusion is a matter of the greatest concern.
There is one specific point that I would draw to the attention of the House. The report records that before the escape a probation officer seconded to the Maze prison in January 1983 had admitted to being a member of the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s. He has since been

dismissed from the probation service. Following investigations by the RUC, Sir James says that there is no evidence that he had any involvement in the escape.
The report makes 73 recommendations covering each of the three areas to which I have referred: enhanced physical security measures; improved security procedures; enhanced training and investigations with a view to possible disciplinary action in the cases of certain members of staff. I accept the analysis and all of the recommendations. The most urgent measures were implemented at once, as I informed the House on 24 October. Twenty-one recommendations have already been put into effect. Thirty-eight will be carried out as soon as possible. And the remaining 14, as the report proposes, will be the subject of urgent review.
As a result of the action taken, the control room in each H block has been made secure against armed attack; an electric lock has been installed at the main gate; a control point secure from armed attack is in place and other security improvements have been made. Plans for a new main gate complex with a remote control locking system are being drawn up. A study of closed-circuit television linkage between each H block and the main control room has been commissioned. Changes in the security procedures, most notably searching, have already been implemented and action will follow in other areas. Discussions are being held this afternoon between my officials and representatives of both the Prison Officers Association and the Governors Association in Northern Ireland about the report.
The report analyses the policy changes made at the end of the hunger strike and on other occasions and concludes that, taken singly or together, they played no significant role in facilitating the escape.
The report is critical of the oversight of security arrangements at the prison by the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office and recommends the strengthening of its staffing. This is being done. A team has also been set up dedicated solely to the urgent implementation of each of the recommendations. I have instructed it to report to me on the progress being made.
While recognising the enormous difficulties involved in running an establishment as large and complex as the Maze, the report concludes that the extent of the deficiencies in management and in the prison's physical defences amounted to a major failure in security for which the governor, who carries the ultimate responsibility for the state of the prison, must be held accountable. In the light of the report's observations, the governor has resigned and his successor is taking up his duties today. The governor has served 34 years in the prison service with dedication and courage and that should not go unremarked. I pay tribute to it. The assistant governor in charge of security has been moved today, and the principal officer concerned with security was replaced shortly after the escape. A governor from headquarters has been appointed to investigate the actions of officers named in the report, including the assistant governor and principal officer, and disciplinary measures will be taken if they are found to be justified.
Sir James's strictures do not extend to all staff at the Maze. As he says, the service contains many men of ability and courage who respond well in a crisis and who are ready to risk their lives in doing their duty. A number of such officers, including officer Ferris who lost his life, are specifically commended by Sir James Hennessy.


Though for reasons of personal safety it is not right to publish their names I can assure the House that I have noted Sir James's comments and will be taking appropriate action.
As I said to the House in October, the escape of so many prisoners represents a considerable setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland. It is also a blot on the distinguished reputation of the prison service. This thorough report has uncovered a number of serious shortcomings and some grave operational mistakes, for which the highest price has been paid. The recommendations are designed as far as possible to ensure that the shortcomings are rectified. I am determined to take them forward with urgency and resolution. The Northern Ireland prison service has an enormously difficult task, but it is of the greatest importance to the community at large that it maintains the highest standards of professionalism and discipline which will enable it to carry out its essential role in the maintenance of law and order in the Province. I commend Sir James's report to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will wish to congratulate Sir James Hennessy on the expedition and obvious sense of urgency with which he conducted the investigation and produced the report. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but he will understand that we have not yet had an opportunity to read the report or to reflect upon it. Discussion in advance of that may be ill advised.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the subject clearly merits a full debate in Government time? Can he assure the House that time will he made available in the near future? If he cannot give that assurance, will he undertake to make strong representations to the Leader of the House?
I should like to ask two questions. First, I make no complaint that the House did not have access to the report in advance of today's statement, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how The Sunday Times seems to have been seized of its contents by 15 January? Has he taken any action on that? Secondly, I echo the Secretary of State's tribute to the work of many in the prison service in difficult and dangerous conditions, but is it not clear from the most cursory reading of the report that, for whatever reasons, morale among staff is abysmally low at both senior and junior level? Does that not give rise to great anxieties in the community generally and among the families of those in custody? Was the Secretary aware of that prior to the breakout? Has he reflected on it since, and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and he will have heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about a debate.
It is clear that The Sunday Times report of about 10 days ago was mere speculation. It got most things wrong. I am certain that it did not get a leak of the report which at that time was not available to anyone because it was not even completed.
Morale in the service is worrying. Staff numbers have increased from 300 prison officers dealing for the most part with petty crimes in about 1970 to a force of 3,000 prison officers who now deal with the most desperate criminals in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that as a result there is a lack of training and sometimes a shortage of people who normally would be expected to join as important a service as the prison service.
I was not aware that following the hunger strike there was the decline in morale to which the report gives substance. I have checked, and it seems from reports that the decline in morale was somewhat exaggerated. One must recognise the great difficulties with which the prison staff and, in particular, the people in charge of them have to operate. One thing after another seems to happen in Northern Ireland prisons, and all involved have a difficult task.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the errors of judgment and organisation to which his statement admits go far beyond any ordinary administrative muddle and must cast the gravest doubt on the whole of the administration of Northern Ireland? Does he agree with me and with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that this matter cannot be allowed to pass without a full debate in the House?

Mr. Prior: The seriousness of the situation in the prison service is brought out clearly in the report and we must take it extremely seriously. The report shows that no policy decisions contributed to the escape. For that reason, I believe that there are no grounds for ministerial resignation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard my right hon. Friend's views, and if there is to be a debate I have no doubt that it can be arranged.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is ministerial responsibility for the shortcomings disclosed by the report —and, if not, why not?

Mr. Prior: I think that I have just answered that question.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support the Secretary of State's remarks about the dedication and diligence of the majority of prison officers. However, is it not clear from the report that some of the prison staff were cognisant with what was taking place? Were not guns smuggled in by visitors, staff, or those supplying goods to the prisons'? That is a serious matter. If the guns had not been supplied, the escape could not have happened.
What will the Secretary of State do about his director at the Northern Ireland Office, who is severely criticised in the report? If the governor of the prison felt that he had to resign, surely the man who was supposed to have been looking after the governor — an inspector of Her Majesty's prisons — must feel that it is his duty to resign.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the responsible Minister in his office, who did not even inform him of the low morale in the prison—as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted today — cannot absolve himself from responsibility? If the governor had resigned and the director should resign, surely the Minister should also resign.

Mr. Prior: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's latter point. There was absolutely no ground for believing that any policy decisions, which are the responsibility of Ministers, were not dealt with expeditiously, and in the manner in which we expected them to be carried out by either the Northern Ireland Office or the governor of the prison.
The governor's duty is to deal with security in the prison service generally, and the report recognises that


there were some failings. However, it also points out that when the governor took over the prison there was an enormous backlog of work. It recognised that he had dedicated himself to trying to improve security in any way that he could.
On the first question, undoubtedly one of the lapses was in the proper inspection and searching of those visiting the prison, whether family, lawyers or clergy. As a result, the report recommends considerable changes in the arrangements between open and closed visits. I have instructed that those changes be carried out immediately.

Mr. Roy Mason: Did not the Prison Officers Association register its concern that the Government's financial restraints were adversely affecting security staffing and security improvements at the Maze?
I note the sackings of senior prison staff. However, did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the report had criticised the Northern Ireland Office prison department, which is responsible for overseeing security arrangements in the Maze? It is clearly a departmental responsibility. Why have not the sackings moved into the Department?

Mr. Prior: There was an increase from £61·9 million to £70·9 million between 1981–82 and 1983–84. In the two years before the escape, the number of staff increased by 365, or 13 per cent., at a time when there was no increase in the prison population. I am not aware of any sensible demands made by the prison department that were not met. That shows that there was no lack of available resources. The responsibility of officials in the prison department was less direct than that of the officers at the Maze. The shortcomings in the security and operations division, referred to in the report, were due primarily to a lack of staff of adequate calibre. I have taken steps to strengthen the position. A review of the management structures of the whole Department is being undertaken, as recommended in the report.
Sir James Hennessy specifically concludes that no blame should attach to the Under-Secretary in charge of the prison department.

Mr. Robert Key: Because all those who represent constituencies on this side of the water always have to be prepared to justify exceptional public expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that the security of all the citizens of the United Kingdom should not be jeopardised by lack of money, can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the cost of the measures that he is taking?

Mr. Prior: I cannot yet give a precise figure, but the measures will cost several million pounds. I shall seek to meet as much of the cost as possible from my own budget in Northern Ireland, but I may have to ask my colleagues for additional resources.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Sir James Hennessy has levelled a number of criticisms at the officers concerned, but we must remember the difficulty of maintaining a high security prison in a country where a substantial number of the inmates enjoy a measure of sympathy from local people. I believe that there are over 550 IRA men there. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the standard of the high security perimeter walls is now similar to the high standard now applied to high

security prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom? Is there now a separate dogs unit within the prison? Has the right hon. Gentleman implemented the regular movement of high security risk prisoners?

Mr. Prior: Much more regular movement has been introduced, and a separate dogs section has been set up. I am satisfied that the security of the perimeter wall is as good as it can be. Sir James Hennessy asked a number of questions and he asked for a review of the outer fencing protection, which was really only a delineation of the property of the prison and was not concerned with security.
In England and Wales, out of a total prison population of about 44,000, there are about 250 high risk prisoners, or 0·5 per cent. They are dispersed throughout the country. In Northern Ireland, there are 1,000 category A high risk prisoners in a total prison population of 2,500 and they have to be kept in two, or at the most three, prisons.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his honesty and frankness in presenting an alarming report. Will he confirm that the lessons of the report have been taken on board by the Northern Ireland Office and will be implemented not only in the Maze but in other prisons in Northern Ireland? The only resignation that we should ask for is the resignation of the Northern Ireland Office never to let such a thing happen again.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. A team has been set up which will look at every recommendation, and we will chase the team to make sure that everything is put into effect as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: The report should be studied in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland, but also in the context of the report of the committee of inquiry into the United Kingdom prison service, published in October 1979, which held up Northern Ireland as an example to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Hennessey report refers to failures by individuals who are negligent or who did not carry out their duties. The report shows that staff at the Maze were complacent about security and that there was widespread laxness and carelessness in the performance of duties at both supervisory and other levels. I was the Minister responsible for the prison service in Northern Ireland and for building it up. Indeed, I pay tribute to the prison service and to those who have given their lives for it in Northern Ireland.
Things were not always as they are today. It would be wrong to pass over the remarkable 34 years' service that the governor of the Maze has given. In my time in office I knew him not only as a governor, but as a man. He was the governor not only of the prison at Armagh but of the other prisons in the Maze complex before he went to the Maze itself. The previous Conservative Government as well as the Labour party thought so highly of him that his name appeared in the honours list about two years ago. He is the type of man to accept the report and honourably to offer his resignation.
I was once a junior Minister and I know that such Ministers are in daily contact with the prison system in Northern Ireland and the governors of it. I am not talking about the present Minister in charge, but I find the


situation odd. If I had been involved, I would have had to get in very quickly before my resignation was sought. I think that I am honourable enough not to have let Mr. Whittington stand alone, taking the blame.

Mr. Prior: I have always made it plain that if anyone were to resign over this matter it would be me. I am primarily responsible. Of course, I have given the matter the most careful personal consideration and have decided that I do not believe that there was negligence in any policy decision by me or by my hon. Friend the Minister. For that reason, I see no need for my resignation on this occasion.
It is difficult to understand how there could have been such laxness in a prison that deals with very dangerous prisoners. It should not have happened, but unfortunately it did. The urgent task is for all involved to work together to restore the level of professionalism needed to carry out a very difficult job. No one can say that the Hennessy report is a whitewash. I asked Sir James Hennessy to get at all the facts. I think that he has done so, and it is now up to us to put the past behind us and to get on and ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the central finding of Sir James Hennessy's very thorough report implies that the key to the escape lay in the possession of firearms within the prison? If so, is he satisfied that the changes that have been made, or are about to be made, will ensure that no guns can get into the prison in future? Will the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in the kingdom believe that ministerial responsibility goes beyond policy matters and bears on the administration of his Department, which the report found to have been at fault?

Mr. Prior: A prison is only as safe as its weakest link, and that is what Sir James says. I cannot ever guarantee that arms will not be smuggled into a prison again. Indeed, there has been at least one occasion since then when arms have been smuggled in. We are having a complete review and a complete change in the arrangements made for both inspection and the searching of visitors, as well as of prison officers in their own interest. That will have to be stepped up enormously to protect them from the intimidation that is always possible in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports for the past three years on the Northern Ireland prison service—the most recent of which was tabled in the House by the right hon. Gentleman three months ago — do not contain any reference to the problem of morale or lack of discipline? On the contrary, one after the other, the reports offer compliments and congratulations. Who are we to believe? Can we believe anyone any longer? Can we believe reports any more when they tell us such things?
As the last serious prison escape in Northern Ireland occurred at Crumlin road prison when guns were also smuggled in, why were the procedures that were introduced at Crumlin road following that escape not introduced immediately at the Maze prison? Who was responsible for that?

Mr. Prior: Crumlin road was a different prison, and we were looking at the arrangements that were recommended for it. At that time there was no recommendation that changes should be made.
The point about morale is interesting. I had received no suggestion that morale was bad. I do not believe that on the whole morale has been bad. There have been problems with the Prison Officers Association, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There was a serious problem as recently as August bank holiday Monday. I believe that a number of prison officers expressed that view to Sir James Hennessy, perhaps with a view to putting at least their side of the case in a better light.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not clear that the Leader of the House must arrange for this damning report to be fully debated so that Ministers of the Crown responsible for Northern Ireland may answer the charges and the calls for resignation that have been made in different quarters of the House? Whether or not morale was bad, it is bad now. One contribution that the House can make is to take note of the commendation in the report of a number of prison officers for their courage, devotion and sacrifice. Since the concentration of terrorists is stated in the report to be the largest in western Europe and since the Home Secretary is on the Treasury Bench, will my right hon. Friend consider redistributing some of the worst of those terrorists to others of Her Majesty's prisons?

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that the latter suggestion would be acceptable, but it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend and not for me. The arrangement of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the vast majority of prison officers who have done their duty with enormous courage. As I said at the beginning of my statement, more than 20 prison officers have been murdered in Northern Ireland during the past 10 years, and much courage is required to live in a community and do a job when one faces the prospect of murder. We should not forget what Sir James Hennessy said about the vast majority of prison officers in the Maze prison.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that Sir James Hennessy's findings will require careful consideration and the House will need to debate these matters. Is it not already clear that the Secretary of State has misrepresented Sir James Hennessy's findings in saying that the ultimate responsiblity must lie with the governor? Sir James went on to speak of the particular responsibilities of the prison department and the director of prison operations whom he holds partially responsible for what happened. He drew attention to the fact that the Under-Secretary, whom he exculpates, was over-worked and under-resourced.
Is it not clear also from what the Secretary of State said this afternoon in reply to questions about his inability to understand how the breakout could happen—he not only does not know how it happened but does not know how it could have happened—that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to provide the inspired leadership that the Hennessy report states as being necessary so that
the prison should soon become again what it was always intended to be; the most secure prison in Northern Ireland."?
In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State abandon the farcical and unconstitutional doctrine that he propounded this afternoon that Ministers of the Crown are responsible only for policy and not for the administration of their Departments?

Mr. Prior: I have nothing further to add to what I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman in an intervention in, I believe, October. Sir James Hennessy, in paragraph 10.12 of his report states:
Nevertheless, the extent of the deficiencies in management and in the prison's physical defences amounted to a major failure in security for which the Governor must be held accountable.
Since that was the main reason why the escape took place, I do not believe that it was unreasonable that the governor should resign.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although many of us acknowledge the particular difficulty associated with Maze prison both in terms of the people in it and its rapid expansion, the report includes some serious charges? Can he assure the House that no policy changes introduced after the last hunger strike were in any way to blame for this breakout?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I can. The report makes it abundantly clear that no policy changes made after the hunger strike were attributable in any way to the breakout. Sir James Hennessy says two things on that matter. First, prison officers claim that at that time there was a lowering of morale that led them to take less trouble. On checking, that was not something that I found to be a relevant factor. Secondly, Sir James draws attention to the fact that greater association, which was one of the points that we allowed after the ending of the hunger strike and which could have been a contributing factor, was not in operation because it had been stopped a year before because of the dirty protests by Loyalist prisoners.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Northern Ireland Office was warned on numerous occasions by deputations from my party that many of the 73 weaknesses found in the security system were in existence for a considerable time before the escape? On taking the word of the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Gentleman consistently denied that that was the case. Is it right that the Secretary of State should group together deficiencies in management which are the responsibility of the governor with deficiencies in the prison's defences which were the responsibility not directly of the governor but of the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Prior: Many of the recommendations were already under review and were being implemented following the report on the Crumlin road outbreak about two years previously. It is possible at any time to see certain improvements that should be made in the prison. In this case, the problem was that both the governor and the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office were under such constant pressure in day-to-day affairs—such as averting protests, the hunger strike and a strike by prison officers—that they were never able to get on with the job of carrying out the necessary improvements.

Rev. William McCrea: It is true that hon. Members should pay tribute to the members of the prison service who serve, as most of them have served, with great distinction and honour in a difficult and dangerous job. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that anyone who has been guilty of criminal neglect is made amenable to the law. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the paragraph in his statement which states:
The report analyses the policy changes made at the end of the hunger strike and on other occasions and concludes that, taken singly or together, they played no significant role in facilitating the escape.
The right hon. Gentleman told the House today that the policy changes had played no role. That is not what his statement says. It says that they played "no significant role". Is it not true that the Prison Officers Association had to go on strike at Magilligan to get movement from the Northern Ireland Office on security matters at that prison?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I need answer the first part of the question again. I referred in my statement to "no significant role". When I referred to "no role" in reply to a supplementary question, I went on to elaborate on two respects in which criticism could have been laid at my door.
As for the prison officers making representations, I can only say that there are 3,000 prison officers. They have had very considerable increases in resources. We need a higher standard and better training for prison officers if they are to perform the duties that we set them, but the problem is especially difficult in Northern Ireland where the force has expanded from 300 to 3,000 in 10 years.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In terms of the future, what about Maghaberry prison? We already have Crumlin, Magilligan and the Maze. Maghaberry was begun in 1975 and should be ready soon. Will not this help the Secretary of State to get people out of the Maze, which is a most unsatisfactory prison which started out as an old airfield with huts for detainees? Will Maghaberry be used to ease the situation at the Maze?

Mr. Prior: That is a very important point. The problem is that Maghaberry will need considerable changes in the light of the report to bring security up to the level now considered necessary. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in alluding to the pressure that must exist in the Maze. If we can in any way defuse or disperse some of the very violent, determined and dangerous prisoners away from the Maze to Maghaberry, that would certainly help, and we should like to do so as soon as we can.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House and the rights of Back Benchers who wish to take part in the subsequent debate. I call the Leader of the House to make the business statement.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY — Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the industrial and social consequences of the Government's policy on the shipbuilding industry. Afterwards, a debate on a motion relating to the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) (Equal Value Amendment) Regulations 1983.
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day). The topic for debate to be announced later. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I must record the regret of the Opposition that the Government have not agreed to the use of the Special Standing Committee procedure for consideration of the Data Protection Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. In order to assist him, in our usual fashion, we shall be tabling a motion to allow the use of that procedure. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to facilitating the full use of Parliament and all its procedures. Will he therefore advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion so that the special procedure may be used?
Last Thursday, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that a statement on the A320 airbus would be made as soon as possible. The front page story in the Financial Times today reports that the Prime Minister is opposed to the project, which clearly causes concern and increases the necessity for a statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to facilitate such a statement?
I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join my in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his service to the House and to the country in using his private Member's day next Friday to debate the cuts in the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Give him a job.

Mr. Kinnock: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about getting a job. May we have a statement during that debate to the effect that the cuts are to be restored?
Finally, when may we have a statement on a second crossing of the Severn estuary and will a day be provided for a debate on the Hennessy report on the Maze prison, as has already been requested in questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: It is perhaps appropriate to comment on the last point first. Anyone who heard the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Hennessy report, and the serious way in which questions were put on it, will realise that there is a general desire for the matter to be taken further in parliamentary debate. I cannot give an immediate assurance on the timing, but I will attend to that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Biffen: I am speaking as clearly as I can.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman speak a little louder?

Mr. Biffen: Even if my words did not reach the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the sentiments should have sustained him. I hope that we shall be able to debate that subject, and I take note of the view of the House that the debate should take place soon.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition will be tabling a motion to allow reconsideration of the application of the Special Standing Committee procedure to the Data Protection Bill. I shall, of course, refer that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
On the matter of a statement about the airbus, my judgment remains the same as it was last week. It will be to the advantage of us all to have a statement on the matter as soon as practicable. Prudence requires me to make no observations whatever on the speculations in the Financial Times.
As for Friday's motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the terms in which the Leader of the Opposition recommended that debate showed that he is halfway to success in enlisting his hon. Friend as a member of the new Establishment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolsover shaking his head as it would be one of the saddest losses that the House could sustain. I take note of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Stokes: In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Lebanon, will my right hon. Friend provide time next week, or very soon, to debate the situation there before matters get completely out of hand?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will note from what I have said that no provision has been made for a debate on the middle east next week. I shall, however, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the point made by my hon. Friend about the seriousness of the situation in the Lebanon.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that I do not intend to follow in his footsteps in taking a job, refusing a job, taking another job and then being shifted from it? I quite like my present position and I have quite a job to do dealing with the social dreamers on this Bench.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity for a debate on the Hennessy report in view of the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today and the contents of the report? Immediately after the Maze breakout the Secretary of State told the nation, not just the House, that if there was any adverse criticism he would be the first to go, but he has not done so. There is a stark contrast between his behaviour today in dodging the


column and the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in stripping trade unionists of their freedom and liberties, not for doing what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did but because the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spoiling it. He should ask questions about the business for next week.

Mr. Biffen: If I may help the hon. Gentleman on his question concerning business in the near future, I am happy to confirm what I have already said, that there will be a debate upon the Hennessy report.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Now that the Select Committees of the House are reconstituted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorn (Mr. Atkins) is safely ensconced as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider and discuss through the appropriate channels the possibility of giving that Select Committee an appropriation function in order properly and effectively to scrutinise the defence equipment procurement process?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises very formidable implications. That is something on which the House may very well at some stage have a chance to give a judgment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not self-evident that the removal of trade union rights for many thousands of people ought to be the subject of a debate in the House?
Even if the Leader of the House has not persuaded himself of the merits of using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Data Protection Bill, will he at least ensure that the House has the opportunity to vote on the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition which will require a business motion from him? Will he consider that through the usual channels?

Mr. Biffen: On the second point, I will look at the matter through the usual channels.
On the first point concerning the communication centre, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a very serious statement yesterday which was subjected to a protracted period of cross-examination at Question Time, and quite properly so, but I think, as I have indicated in next week's business, that the Government are not disposed to find further time for the matter to be discussed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Government receive the five banks' report on the channel tunnel within the next few days, there will be a debate on the issue before the Government commit themselves one way or the other?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the important point that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall certainly communicate it to those of my right hon. Friends who would have to take the decision.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the weather conditions in Scotland in recent weeks have been atrocious and that they are probably getting worse? Is he further aware that there is already evidence that some local authorities, with their

present resources, cannot cope with the task of keeping essential services running and roads open? It will obviously take a little time for the picture to emerge, but can he give an undertaking that in due course, perhaps next week, the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement to the House showing how local authorities are to be enabled to keep the roads open?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. When extreme natural hazards arise, very often it requires comment from the Dispatch Box. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland so that he may keep the matter under review.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to study the law reports of the case yesterday in which someone was fined heavily for flouting the copyright laws for copying matter from books on a copying machine. This is symptomatic of the widespread flouting going on at present, and of inadequacies in the current law. Can he say when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will introduce a Bill to correct the inadequacies in the copyright laws?

Mr. Biffen: I can give no indication when a copyright Bill will be presented, although I am conscious of some of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I have to say that the Government's legislative programme is already under considerable pressure.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a lot of disquiet on this side of the House about the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet made a statement to the House about her involvement in the £300 million Oman deal? Will he use his powers to persuade her either to make a statement and answer questions in the House, or to submit herself to the lie-detecting machine at Cheltenham?

Mr. Biffen: I expect that that was meant to be a helpful question, but I cannot reasonably add to what I said in reply to such questions this time last week.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I would not wish to overload the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with having to make statements in the House, but will my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members support the call for a statement on the A320 as soon as possible, as it may remove the necessity for further redundancies in British Aerospace? Will he also make a request to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House at an early date, preferably next week, to make a statement on the report—a plan for action—that was submitted to the Department in March 1983, as the textile and clothing industry is the third largest manufacturing employer in the country?

Mr. Biffen: I will refer both points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I hope that there is no misunderstanding in the House. There will be a statement about the airbus.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer again to early-day motion 49?
That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83.
The motion stands in my name and that of nearly 200 hon. Members on these Benches concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the present extortionate and wicked rate of charge of fees for British citizenship should be reduced. The report has been in the Government's pigeon hole for about nine months. May we now have action or a debate and a statement as to why no action has been taken?

Mr. Biffen: I will take up that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that later this evening the House will debate the European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983. He will also be aware that Members of that institution have certain aspirations to style it as the European Parliament. Will he confirm that the correct designation as far as the Government are concerned is, and will remain, the European Assembly?

Mr. Biffen: With the sort of sloppy tolerance that made this nation great, I think that we are allowed to use both.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to providing time for a debate on the statement made yesterday? Does he understand that the Prime Minister has done nothing today to dispel widespread concern that the Government proposals are unlawful, represent a denial of human rights and are a slur on trade unions? As we understand that these proposals were not considered by the Cabinet, and as the Prime Minister is meeting trade unions to discuss them, will he arrange for the House to have an early opportunity to discuss how these proposals came about, and how they can be contested?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the seriousness of the proposals and the resentment that they cause in some quarters, but no provision has been made for Government time to be available for a further debate on the topic. However, that does not rule out hon. Members seeking other parliamentary means.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that in Hansard on 19 December 1983, as reported in column 11 of written questions, I asked the Prime Minister about the costs of the polygraph at Cheltenham and received the reply that $25,000 had been paid to the United States for polygraph equipment for security checks? In these circumstances, may the House have a statement next week on the conditions of that sale from the United States?

Mr. Biffen: I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will be in touch with him.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Even if the Foreign Secretary had not made the statement that he made yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the introduction of the polygraph system is a very important event and should be the subject of a debate? Does he also agree that, although one acknowledges his own initiative, the House has had only one debate on the Civil Service in the last five years and that that is quite inadequate?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday made it clear that the decision he then announced was in no way related to the polygraph. However, I note his interest that there should be a debate on the subject, and I will refer that interest to the relevant Government Department.
As to a debate upon the Civil Service, again I have to say that there is no provision for one in Government time in the near future. There are pressures for debates on other topics that are at least equal candidates.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen the allegation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) concerning the conduct of Mr. Bernard Ingham, a personal adviser and friend of the Prime Minister, whom he alleges, following a conversation with the editor of The Observer, threatened that editor? Is it not for the right hon. Gentleman to put it to the Prime Minister that she should come to the House and make a full statement either denying the allegation or accepting that it is true and making an apology on his behalf to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I do not have the advantage of having seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I confess that I thought that Mr. Ingham was one of the less minatory people — [HON. MEMBERS: "Military?"] Minatory, threatening. Perhaps I should have said "threatening." I think that there must be much misunderstanding on the matter, but I shall have a look at it.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House consider making available time for a debate on the Government paper published yesterday entitled "Public and Private Funding of the Arts"? Does he agree that since the general election the House has not debated the arts and that, although we do not have a Minister here directly responsible for them, this central element in our national life should be the subject of debate?

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises and refer it to the relevant Government Department.

Mr. John Preece

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece.
This issue is specific because it deals with the delay by the Home Office in dealing with the case of Mr. Preece, who was wrongly imprisoned for murder. It is also specific because it deals with the handling by various departments of the Home Office with requests from convicted prisoners to have their cases reopened. It is, further, specific because it deals with the role and integrity of the forensic science service.
It is important because it deals with freedom from unjustified imprisonment, and that freedom is the most valued possession of our democratic life. A complaint that a conviction is unjustified merits very careful examination, as careful as in any court of law. But we now know that the Home Office does not examine evidence in that way. The Home Office departments, according to the Parliamentary Commissioner, have made ill-advised judgments on incomplete knowledge, even when the case for re-examination was as overwhelming as it was in the Preece case.
I hope that in debate we shall be able to question what is happening in all other cases, because the Home Office has failed in its fundamental duty to protect the innocent citizen, and it is essential that this matter be debated by the House, which bears the ultimate responsibility.
This matter is urgent because the Home Office and its forensic science service has been discredited by the Parliamentary Commissioner's report to the House, with its meticulous analysis and trenchant criticsm. The Home Office has been exposed as a failure in its role as the guardian of individual liberties. Its disastrously negative response to the discovery that one of its leading forensic scientists was professionally incompetent, made unjustified conclusions and gave meaningless evidence means that innocent men and women may still now be in gaol.
Accordingly, the Home Secretary should give an urgent and detailed explanation of the disasterous failures that have occurred and should listen to the criticism and proposals for reform in a debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece.
The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very serious matter. He will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the orders set down for today or, perhaps, for Monday.
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Polmaise Colliery

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the National Coal Board's announcement of the closure of Polmaise Colliery in my constituency.
This is an important issue because the pit at present employs 250 men, almost all of whom live in the village of Fallin, which adjoins the mine. I say "at present" because it had been assumed that when the mine went into full production, a further 400 men would have to be recruited.
The matter is urgent because unless the NCB is forced to change its mind, a long and damaging struggle could ensue, with consequences for good relations in the Scottish coalfield. The matter is absolutely important for the United Kingdom coal industry because the reasons given by the NCB for the closure are threefold; geological difficulties, marketing problems and the economic situation of the industry. This is the first time since the publication of "Plan for Coal" that the last two reasons for closure have been advanced. It has always been assumed that the combination of geological faulting and exhaustion of resources were the only two factors that would be taken into account.
The announcement today could be the death knell for the village of Fallin, the end of a long and illustrious tradition of coal mining in Stirlingshire and mark the beginning of the end of the coal industry in Scotland, because if this pit is closed, no mine in Scotland will be safe.
All of these prospects could be avoided if the House had the opportunity to debate this significant announcement today and could afford the Secretary of State for Energy the opportunity to dissociate the Government from the intentions of the NCB and to protect what is still our basic energy resource. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to view this application sympathetically.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the National Coal Board's announcement of its intention to close Polmaise Colliery in his constituency.
I must tell the hon. Member what I told the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that having listened carefully to what he said, I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any intimation from the Department of Energy that a statement might be made on this issue?

Mr. Speaker: I have not, but I have no doubt that the point will have been noted by those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Bernard Ingham (Memorandum)

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns a document that has recently come into my hands. It is headed "Confidential" and seems to be a memo from a Mr. B. Ingham, who has been mentioned already in the House this afternoon. The memo is dated 30 December 1983, and I believe that Mr. Ingham is the chief press officer for the Prime Minister. The document is dated, therefore, before the Second Reading of the Rates Bill applying to England and Wales and between the time of the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which is similar legislation for north of the border.
Certain parts of the document are quite innocuous, such as references to how Ministers can get on to propaganda bandwagons — "The Jimmy Young Show", "Today", "The World at One"—and it even deals with using the gutter press such as the News of the World. The point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is a reference in the document to opposition by the Government's own supporters. It says:
The successful plan … should treat as a matter of urgency elements among the Government's own supporters to ensure that they are neutralised, if not positively harnessed to the Government's cause.
The House has already seen the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and other Conservative Members vote against or abstain from voting on that legislation. Will you, Mr. Speaker, investigate the matter to see whether undue pressure is being put on right hon. and hon. Members? I am sure that you, as the protector of all hon. Members, would disapprove strongly of an attempt to "neutralise" and "harness" the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Cambridgeshire, South-East and other right hon. and hon. Members.
In the document there may be prima facie evidence for referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, I would like to give you the document, Mr. Speaker, to examine in your own time before making a statement to the House about it.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you investigate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), will you take the opportunity to confirm that the person referred to, Mr. Bernard Ingham, gives as devoted service to the Prime Minister in his present capacity as he gave to Mr. Tony Benn when he acted as press secretary on Mr. Benn at the Department of Energy some time ago?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make a statement about that. From what I know of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is difficult to put pressure on them — I say that with some background knowledge. I do not need the document, but if the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) alleges that contempt of the House is occurring he must put it in writing and I shall consider it in the usual way.

Members of Parliament (Declarations of Interest)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about the declaration of interests. On previous occasions you have been noticeably reticent — understandably so —about making a statement on declarations of interest. I draw your attention to three opinions expressed about the matter by former Speakers: in 1946 by Mr. Speaker Clifton-Brown, on 5 February 1953 by Mr. Speaker Morrison and on 12 May 1965 by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster. They stated what they believed constituted a declaration of interest.
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He sought guidance on
whether Members of the House who are members of Lloyd's have a direct pecuniary interest that is immediate and personal such as to require them not to vote on the Bill, whether for or against it."—[Official Report, 24 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 811.]
Mr. Speaker Thomas answered,
I am of the opinion",
and gave his opinion about the position in the Lobbies and whether hon. Members should vote.
If there are precedents, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to make a ruling, if not today in a few days' time, on my point of order. As I understand it, the arrangements for declarations of interests are laid out in the resolution agreed by the House on 22 May 1974, which states:
That, in any debate or proceeding of the House or its committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.
If the recommendation of the Select Committee on Conduct of Members in 1977 is accepted as a definition of what constitutes a declarable interest—I remind the House that that Select Committee was hearing and taking evidence on the Poulson affairs—I shall quote directly from it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not seek to hurry the hon. Member unduly, but we have important business to attend to. I ask him to come to his point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Select Committee stated:
Mr. Maudling and members of his family hold shares in Poulson companies. Mr. Martin Maudling, his son, was a Director of OSB and Office Manager of ITCS. Your Committee considered it likely that these appointments were made on Mr. Poulson's initiatives to please Mr. Reginald Maudling and that the appointments should be included amongst the benefits to Mr. Maudling of the association.
The word "benefits" is crucial. When the Prime Minister replied to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in the House, she should have declared a family interest, if only for commission or expenses, direct or indirect, in Cementation Ltd. She should have done so when she rose at the Dispatch Box to reply to my hon. Friends' questions. I submit to the House that the word "proceedings" covered the statements made by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and, therefore, she had a duty to the House to make


the position clear. It is clear from statements coming from Downing street that her press secretary — our friend Bernard Ingham—is pursuing a strange course of action in relation to requests for information about the contract.
My point of order is that any commission or expenses, direct or indirect, to Mark Thatcher or his associates is equivalent to the appointment of Maudling's son, as referred to in the 1977 recommendation. Both are "benefits" to the Members of Parliament concerned and should be declared.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I wrote a three-page letter to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House at Question Time on Tuesday when she prayed in aid the right of privacy for her son. She prayed in aid paragraph 10 of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, during the session 1974–75. The Prime Minister must know that the principles governing the conflict or potential conflict for Ministers regarding interests and the interests of their family are not set out in that Select Committee report. They are laid down in a memorandum submitted by the then Secretary to the Cabinet in 1975 to the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life.
If those principles are applied to what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the Prime Minister has an interest which should be declared in the Register of Interests. I have looked at the Register of Interests for the relevant period but she has not declared an interest.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule either that the Prime Minister declares an interest or that there has been some terrible misunderstanding, or perhaps that the House should reconvene the Select Committee on Conduct of Members to consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I did not receive notice of the point of order from the hon. Member for Workington, but I have taken careful account of what he said. I take issue with him

over his statement that I have been reticent on matters of Members' interests. As he knows, it has never been necessary at Question Time for right hon. and hon. Members to declare interests. To take as wide a sphere of interests as hon. Members have suggested today would widen the Register enormously. I should think that many hon. Members have members of their families who are in businesses, or who have shareholdings, and none of us knows exactly what these are.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that considered the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I ask you seriously to consider his point of order, and you might wish to study Hansard so that you can consider carefully what he said. The Select Committee spent a long time considering those points, and its recommendations were made with great care. I urge you to look at what has been said with a view to making a statement to the House, perhaps next week. You should also examine the report of the Select Committee and consider the evidence on which its recommendations were supported.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have an important debate to follow, we shall not take this matter further today. I shall do as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggests. I am the defender of the rights of Back-Bench Members, and I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said. It was not my recollection when I was concerned with the Register that it had anything to do with the interests of one's family, but I shall examine it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Sir John Biggs-Davison
Mr. Mark Robinson
Mr. Robert B. Jones

European Community (Developments)

[Relevant document: Cmnd. 8838, "Developments in the European Community, June to December 1982."]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983, Cmnd. 9043.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Rifkind: It has been the custom to debate developments in the European Community on the basis of reports tabled in the House. As the House will be aware, there are two such reports at present, one of which in normal circumstances would have been debated some months ago but for the unexpected intervention of the general election, which made its debate inappropriate. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss both reports today.
The period in question is July 1982 to June 1983—a period packed with important developments in the Community, concluding with two especially important occasions, the Stuttgart summit and the British general election when the electorate repudiated by an overwhelming majority the Opposition's call for Britain's withdrawal from the Community. I shall not dwell on that point, because I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I appreciate the sensitivities of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his colleagues in not wishing to discuss it.
Several important decisions were made at the Stuttgart summit, one of which was the approval of the United Kingdom refund for 1983 of about £430 million. That refund, together with the refunds for the previous three years, means that during the Conservative Administration a total of £2·5 billion has been refunded, which is equivalent to about two thirds of our unadjusted net contribution. That is a tremendous achievement for which the Government can take credit, and it compares favourably with the inability of the Labour Government during their five years in office — despite having, in their words, "renegotiated" the terms of our membership of the Community—to obtain a single pound of refund for the United Kingdom. It would not be unfair to describe the Labour party's approach to those matters as the Opposition's zero option. That has been their record so far, and it would no doubt be the case if they came to office again.
The sums due are normally paid within the financial year, and both sides of the House were gravely disappointed and concerned by the decision of the European Parliament to put the appropriate sum into the reserve chapter of the Community budget. The Community is not in default at present, and a similar although not identical problem a year ago was resolved within the appropriate time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Common Market is in default because it has not paid us the £42 million that was due on 31 December. As we always understood that the Government would act firmly on default, will my hon. Friend tell the House what they are doing about the default of 31 December?

Mr. Rifkind: I was talking about the refund of £430 million. As to the sum which my hon. Friend mentioned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already written to the European Commission pointing out the facts to which my hon. Friend drew attention and stating our desire that the Commission should introduce proposals to resolve the problem. We treat this matter seriously, and it is our firm desire that both matters should be resolved in the way that I have mentioned.

Mr. Taylor: The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Commission on 3 January stating that it was in default by £42 million. Is not the House entitled to know whether he has received a reply and, if so, what sort of reply?

Mr. Rifkind: The House is entitled to know that. My right hon. and learned Friend has not received a reply. We await it as eagerly as does my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend will appreciate, as will the rest of the House, that if moneys are paid late, they incur interest charges. Will Her Majesty's Government insist that, when we get this money, we also get interest for the use of that money during that period?

Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps I may take my hon. Friend's remarks one at a time. We are anxious to ensure that the sums due for 1982 and 1983 are paid, and we expect the European Parliament to take the necessary action to allow that to happen during this financial year.
The Stuttgart summit was one important event referred to in the report, but it would be wrong to omit at least some reference to other major developments during that period in which the House will have an interest. One of the most important was the resolution of the long-standing common fisheries policy. The ability of the Community to reach a conclusion, which has been accepted by all British fishing interests, was a major achievement not only in the details of the agreement, but especially because it showed that the Community can adapt a policy that was devised for a Community of six to meet the requirements of a Community of ten. That is an important precedent which shows that, where the will exists, it should and will be possible to reach agreement on other matters that were devised for a smaller Community.
The reports also refer to the important new rules of the social fund, which enable about 75 per cent. of the funds available to be allocated to young people in the Community. The regional fund has been adapted so that it now recognises, for example, the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland. It has provided generous sums for urban renewal in Belfast, which I hope will be especially welcomed by hon. Members from the Province.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: We welcome the special funds for Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend recognise the proposition that those who pay the piper should be entitled at least to inquire into the tune? In those circumstances, is it not likely that the EC will wish to inquire into the political institutions in Northern Ireland before it makes available extra finance?

Mr. Rifkind: Agreement has already been reached on generous grants for urban renewal in Belfast, with no suggestion of the conditions that my hon. Friend mentioned. The functions and responsibility of the Commission and the Community are well known in the


House and in Brussels. We lose no opportunity to ensure that neither the Commission nor the European Parliament goes beyond its properly defined area of responsibilities.
An important matter during the period covered by the report was political co-operation. Both in regard to the middle east and preparatory matters for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Madrid, the Community spoke with a single voice. Sometimes within the Community we do not realise the importance that the rest of the world attaches to the fact that Europe can speak with a single voice on international issues. It is of benefit not only to Britain but to wider European interests. Therefore, it is something that we wish to encourage.
I mentioned earlier the Stuttgart summit. The conclusions reached there were not just in regard to the refund. They looked forward to the long-term reform of the Community and led to the Athens summit in December. The results of that summit were an overwhelming disappointment to this country and to the whole of the Community. It is important and worth while to make two observations on that summit. In the past in the United Kingdom we have often been tempted to assume that whenever there is a crisis in the Community, or the Community has been unable to reach agreement, that has been purely on issues in which Britain has taken a special interest. It has often been assumed that when there has been disagreement, Britain has been on one side and the rest of the Community has been on the other.
Whatever truth there might have been in that in the past, that would be an unwise and inappropriate way to describe the Athens summit. At that summit a substantial agenda included issues other than those in which Britain is particularly interested. The agenda included not only the common agricultural policy and reform of budgetary arrangements, but enlargement of the Community, the future of monetary compensatory amounts, new policies and other issues in which Britain is interested but does not take a prime part.

Mr. Marlow: In regard to enlargement of the Community—a very important subject—will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's view on the accession of Spain and Portugal would be dictated purely by the interests of the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to tell the House, before any decision is made, what will be the cost to and the effect on employment in the United Kingdom of the accession of Spain and Portugal?

Mr. Rifkind: The criteria which are relevant to the accession of Spain and Portugal are the economic considerations that my hon. Friend has taken into account and the political consideration that Spain and Portugal are now democratic countries. There have been expressions of opinion from both sides of the House, as well as from other Community countries, to the effect that the democratic institutions in Spain and Portugal would be greatly strengthened by their membership of the Community. There is no doubt that the Governments of Spain and Portugal take the same view. I also agree with my hon. Friend that that does not mean that they should be given a blank card in regard to membership. Serious negotiations are taking place. The United Kingdom and other members of the Community wish to ensure that the economic and financial implications of enlargement of the Community

are reasonable and can be accommodated without undue damage to other interests of the kind to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Robin Cook: I hope we can begin the proceedings pleasantly by making non-partisan points. The Minister will be aware that accession to the EC involves accession to Euratom, and Spain is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty. Membership of Euratom would, of course, entitle Spain to access to nuclear technological information, which would be contrary to the non-proliferation regime. There is no precedent for a non-nuclear weapons state acceding to Euratom. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will use their influence to encourage Spain to become a party to the non-proliferation treaty before it is allowed into Euratom?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government and the Community as a whole are well aware of that point. If the problem is to be resolved, it will be done either by Spain becoming a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty or by other arrangements that would take account of the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
As I have said, some of the issues covered at the Athens summit were not ones in which Britain has been specifically a front runner. Equally, if one considers the various issues on which there was inability to reach agreement, one finds that on each of these issues there were different groups of countries on each side. For example, Britain was one of the majority strongly in support of enlargement of the Community for the reasons that I have indicated. The future of MCAs is primarily an issue between France and Germany, with other countries having a lesser interest. In regard to the future of the common agricultural policy, Britain and the Netherlands have a similar outlook on the need for reform, whereas on budgetary issues it is Britain and the Federal German Republic that see eye to eye. Therefore, there is no permanent group of countries on one side on all the issues, with Britain either by itself or in a tiny minority on the other side. It is appropriate that each issue should be considered on its merits. That is the sensible way of doing it.
As the Athens summit was such a failure, the responsibility for determining how to proceed falls primarily on the French presidency. France has indicated that its main interest will be in pursuing a procedural path of regular Council meetings with a series of bilateral meetings between individual Governments. We have no objection to that approach, although we have emphasised the importance of maintaining an overall umbrella control of the process of negotiation because, if success is to be achieved, it will be—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The point that the Minister has been making is that we are always calling for reform, whether through enlargement of the Community, or by reconsideration of the budget or the CAP. Will he explain what the chances are of getting any of these things?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be dealing with some of those points. I have already said that we are not isolated on any of them. We have the support of some countries on some issues and of other countries on others. The whole movement of opinion is increasingly in our direction. Up


to the time of the Stuttgart summit there was unwillingness to accept the need for reform of the common agricultural policy or to deal with budgetary imbalances. Since Stuttgart that has not been in dispute, and we are seeking a solution that is acceptable to all countries.
The two main outstanding issues are the common agricultural policy and budgetary imbalances. On the CAP, perhaps one of the most curious aspects is that it has to some extent been a victim of its own success. A policy that was initiated largely to ensure guaranteed supplies to consumers and a greater degree of self-sufficiency and to protect the legitimate interests of the farming community has, because of the dramatic increases in productivity, through technological advances and other forms of incentive, produced vast surpluses in some areas and the increasing risk of surpluses in others with which we are all familiar.
All hon. Members will recognise the legitimate interests of the farming community. I believe there is an increasing body of opinion in the Community that shares the British Government's view that those interests cannot be safeguarded simply by ever-increasing surpluses that are expensive to maintain and equally expensive to export. Such exports often conflict with the wider global interests with which the Community should be equally concerned.
The British Government's approach is to advocate what we have referred to as a strict financial guideline—that, at the beginning of each financial year, the Community should decide the amount that is available for agricultural expenditure. That is not a radical measure or a dramatic change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad that the fact that it is not a radical measure appeals to Opposition Members. There is not a Government in the Community who do not believe in at least trying to control their own expenditure. If that is true for individual Governments, it should be true for the Community as a whole. If it is true for the Community in regard to total expenditure, it should be equally true in regard to agriculture, which represents such a high proportion of Community expenditure.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If such a solution as my hon. Friend puts forward is adopted, the income of farmers in this country, which, as he well knows, has already fallen substantially over the past three years—Opposition Members will know that I speak as a farmer and therefore have an interest in and knowledge of the subject—will fall further, and farming will no longer be a viable industry.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to what I have already referred to as the legitimate interests of the farming community. What is the appropriate way of safeguarding those interests? I do not think that the majority of members of that community would say that there is a logical or sensible argument for continuing to build up huge surpluses for which there is no market either at home or abroad. That cannot be the appropriate way forward, and I think that most reasonable people would accept that view.
If a strict financial guideline can be agreed, specific decisions will also have to be taken on individual commodities. The British Government's approach is based on a firm pricing policy, guaranteed thresholds and the avoidance of some of the proposals for new forms of revenue-raising in the Community, such as the oils and fats

tax which has been proposed by the Commission, which we believe to be highly inappropriate for a number of reasons.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the crucial issue in respect of EC and, therefore, common agricultural policy finance is whether the financial limits are set by the Finance Ministers at the Finance Council before the Agriculture Ministers take the decision? Is he aware that the evidence given to the Select Committee by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury showed that until now those decisions have been taken, in effect, by Agriculture Ministers. not by Finance Ministers? Does he accept that that is the root of the problem?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, and it is one that the British Government have emphasised. Our proposals envisage a strict financial guideline being determined and the Agriculture Ministers taking their decisions on individual commodities within the framework within which they know they have to operate. That would ensure that proper control was exercised. If it were believed at any time during the year that, for reasons beyond control, a supplementary budget was required, the issue would have to go back to the Council for a seperate decision. We believe that there would have to be a unanimous decision if it were to be recognised.
The other main problem that has to be resolved is that of budgetary imbalances. There has been a substantial change of opinion. My understanding is that all member states within the Community recognise the existence of the problem and the need to do something about it. The most obvious exampleof how artificial, absurd and arbitrary the existing arrangements are is that if, as many of us hope, Portugal joins the Community while the existing rules apply, and does so without any special provision, it will have the dubious pleasure and privilege, as the poorest member of an enlarged Community, of joining the United Kingdom and Germany and becoming the third largest net contributor to the EC. Any system that produces such an absurd and artificial consequence, however unintended, requires reform, and that is something that we have emphasised.
Some of our partners suggest that in seeking reform we are pursuing what is referred to as juste retour—that we are expecting to get back from the Community exactly what we put in. That has never been the Government's position. We have always argued that the system must be fair and equitable, and that if there is any element of redistribution within the Community, the only defensible basis for it is a movement of resources from the more prosperous members to the less prosperous members that is not artificial and arbitrary.
We have argued for a safety-net system that would ensure that the maximum net contribution of any one country would take into account its relative prosperity within the Community. We do not believe that such a system would meet the British situation, but we consider it to be a solution that would be, or should be, acceptable to other member states. The problem is not peculiarly a United Kingdom one, although the United Kingdom may have taken the lead in pointing to a suitable way forward.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain why the richer states might wish to make contributions to the poorer states? Is there a new mood of EC socialism abroad?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's caution — and suspicion—is by no means unusual, and it is natural for him to express it. If there is to be a system that involves net contributions from certain states, the maximum contribution forthcoming from any one state should take account of its relative prosperity within the Community as a whole. That is a system in which even my hon. Friend would not have too much difficulty in acquiescing.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has set out the principle of a safety net. Many right hon. and hon. Members probably go along with that. What is President Mitterrand's view about that?

Mr. Rifkind: Over the past few months President Mitterrand has suggested that he accepts that there is a need to resolve what is sometimes referred to as the British problem. He has said in recent weeks, especially at the Athens summit, that the solution should continue for a certain period. M. Cheysson, the French Foreign Minister, repeated that view while addressing the European Parliament. The British Government take the view that any acceptable solution to the problem must have certain essential ingredients. We say that the solution must be durable; in other words, that it must last for as long as the problem continues, and that it must provide a degree of relief that is commensurate with the burden that countries such as the United Kingdom experience. We also say that it must apply automatically each year. We cannot have a solution which has to be approved annually by the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. Annual approval would again bring the difficulties that we have experienced over the past few years.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend intend to say something about the own resources problem? It seemed that he might conclude his speech by saying nothing about it. An important statement appears in the Stuttgart declaration, which is dealt with at page 44 of the White Paper, "Developments in the European Community January-June 1983", where our Government agreed
to agree measures which, taken as a whole, will avoid the constantly recurrent problems between the member states over the financial consequences of the Community's budget and its financing.
Does that mean that the only way in which the problem can be solved automatically is to increase own resources? Is that what the Government have in mind for the future?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have made it clear that they will be prepared to consider an increase in own resources, provided that there is an acceptable solution to the problem of budgetary imbalances and the control of agriculture expenditure. We believe that the linkage between the two makes a great deal of sense. The member states which are the most anxious to have an increase in own resources are those which are seeking to change the decision that was taken in 1970 to set up the own resources system, which is the main contributory factor to the budgetary imbalances problem that we now face. These factors are all part of the same problem, and it is not unreasonable that there should be a link of the sort to which I have referred.
We wish to resolve these problems so that the Community can give more attention to its future and to many of the new policies that many would like to see. Some of the new policies that are occasionally advanced may involve an element of increased expenditure, but there are many ways in which the Community can and should develop that would involve no extra expenditure and represent substantial savings for all member states.
I draw attention, for example, to a speech made by Commissioner Christopher Tugendhat in Glasgow in September 1983, in which he said:
it has been estimated that the total cost of passing intra-Community frontiers is at present around £6·75 billion a year which is about half the total cost of the Community budget. Preliminary calculations by the Commission suggest that the cost of frontier formalities could be equivalent to between 5 and 10 per cent. of the actual value of the goods before tax.
I have spent some time on the details of the Government's policy on the Community and its developments. I am bound to say that, so far, although we are now more than half a year away from the general election, we have no detailed knowledge of the Opposition's policies on many of these matters. For example, immediately after the election, the Opposition abandoned their commitment to withdraw from the Community. Indeed, so anxious were they to abandon that commitment that some of them gave the impression that they wished they had never had it in the first place. They should have recalled Churchill's dictum — that a politician should never commit suicide, as he might live to regret it. That happened to the Opposition, and it is an experience from which they must take great discomfort. Although we welcome the withdrawal of that Opposition commitment, we are entitled to ask, "How complete a. withdrawal is it?"
We saw an extraordinary conflict of comments between the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader of the Opposition on withdrawal. The present Leader of the Opposition, writing in The Guardian on 18 July last year. said:
By 1988 Britain will have been in the Common Market 15 years. That will not make withdrawal impossible—it will obviously remain as a constitutional right for all member countries. The Leader of the Opposition emphasised that it remains a constitutional right to be used in the last resort.
The deputy Leader of the Opposition, also writing in The Guardian—that paper seems to be the repository of all Labour wisdom—on 8 August last year, referring to the comments that I have just quoted, said:
To say 'we retain the constitutional right to withdraw' from the Community is either to say nothing or to say something so damaging that its implications ought to be fully understood and described in precise language".
I remind the House that those comments were made, not when the two right hon. Gentlemen were Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition, but when they both aspired to leadership of the Labour party, and therefore did not feel the need to agree with each other on every issue. Perhaps the deputy Leader of the Opposition no longer feels able to express his views in quite such robust language. However, we are entitled to ask the Opposition what their views are, for example, on the future of the common agricultural policy. We know that they do not like it, but with what do they want to replace it?
Reference has been made in various speeches to a deficiency payments scheme. Have the Opposition ever tried to cost that? Do they seek it just for Britain, or for the Community as a whole? Have they any support from


any other member state or Socialist party in the Community for a policy of that nature? What is their policy on budgetary imbalances? Do they support the Government's policy, and will they give it all the support that they can?
The amendment tabled by the Opposition today is a disgrace. It has little relevance to the Community. It shows the Opposition's passionate desire to avoid any debate on the Community and to use every occasion, both in the House and in the coming European Parliament elections, to concentrate solely on the national economic policy of this Government. We do not mind debating that, but it reveals the bankruptcy of thought of the Opposition on these issues.

Mr. Robin Cook: Rubbish.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." I had the benefit of reading the article that he wrote in The Times two days ago, when he informed his leadership that he was about to start on a series of
provincial speaking engagements on Europe that stretches right up to the blessed relief of Euro polling day in June".
We shall have a veritable Cook's tour — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but at least the other Cook's tours have been privatised. I wish the hon. Gentleman had been privatised.
The hon. Gentleman also said in the same article that he does not trust the House of Commons to be the repository of his wisdom on matters of this kind. He said:
Why then do I embark on this extended peregrination? There are two answers. The first is that it is likely to be more fruitful than Parliament. The House of Commons is a civil place in which to debate, but there is little chance of winning converts there.
The hon. Gentleman is a man of little faith. If we cannot be the repository of his views on details of the Opposition's policy on the EC, we hope that on this occasion, or during his extended tour of the United Kingdom, he will expand on these matters.

Mr. John Prescott: it is a perfectly proper form of electioneering.

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. But normally a debate in the House of Commons on the European Community should be seen as at least a relevant occasion for the Opposition to explain their policy. If the amendment is anything to go by, we cannot assume that. It contains no reference to the CAP. It makes no reference to budgetary imbalances. It makes no reference to any of the issues covered in these reports or to the subject of the Athens or Stuttgart summits. It shows the extent to which the Opposition, because of their internal divisions, wish to avoid any detailed comment on the European Community.
When the hon. Member for Livingston and his colleagues speak for their candidate in Chesterfield, we shall be interested to hear their pronouncements. Mr. Benn made his position clear. In the House, on 21 February last year, he said:
the British people will break with the treaty of Rome". —[Official Report, 21 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 684.]
Unlike the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen, he has not changed his views on that subject. Presumably, he will fight the by-election as a politician who is committed to withdrawal from the Community. Will Opposition Members support him in that view? If not, will they make that clear to the electorate? That is something that we and the electorate are entitled to know.
I end on a more cheerful note than the problems faced by the Opposition. Many people express their disappointment — it is understandable — and distress about the difficulty that the Community has faced in recent years in reaching agreements on many of the matters that need to be resolved. Although it is a matter of disappointment, it is not a matter that depresses or surprises me. We are dealing with a group of countries which, for hundreds of years, have solved their problems by shooting at one another, by regular wars and by internecine conflicts. If the Community finds it difficult, by the mere process of negotiation, to resolve all its problems in as short a period as we would wish, it may be a matter for disappointment, but it should not be a cause for significant depression. It was pointed out to me recently that the United States, when it first came into existence in 1776, took 16 years to agree on a common currency, and that it took a further 50 years for that to become a reality. If that was the case for a group of territories with a common language and history, and without any background or desire to retain national sovereignty—

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister is making a bold analogy. If he relies on that analogy, will he say whether he sees Europe ending up with the same degree of federation as the United States— if necessary, with a major war along the way?

Mr. Rifkind: No, we do not want anything of the sort. I am making the perfectly valid point, as the hon. Gentleman is intelligent enough to realise, that if a group of territories, with a common language and without any history of national sovereignty or desire to preserve their national sovereignty, nevertheless takes several generations to agree on a common currency, it is not surprising or a cause of depression on the part of most reasonable people that the Community—consisting, as it does, of 10 nations which wish to preserve their national sovereignty and which have a history of division and different historical backgrounds—takes a considerable time to reach agreement on this matter.
The most encouraging sign is that the people of the United Kingdom and of the Community as a whole believe more strongly than ever that if western Europe is to make progress in the interests of the prosperity and well-being of its people, it requires success within the European Community. Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to make that a reality.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
'and regrets that within the period under review Her Majesty's Government has continued to pursue in the institutions of the EEC the same negative and destructive policies in industry and the economy which have caused so much damage in the United Kingdom, and the same regressive and divisive social policies which have widened inequality and injustice in the United Kingdom.'
I find it quite extraordinary that, after yesterday's exchanges on the Foreign Secretary's answer concerning the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and after December's debate on the budgetary contributions and the common agricultural policy, when the House witnessed divisions within the Conservative party, the Minister should choose to taunt the Opposition about being divided. Moreover, he substantiated his claim by grubbing around for quotations that are now six months old or, in the case


of Mr. Benn, the future right hon. Member for Chesterfield, a full one year old. When the Minister comes to the crunch question—inviting the House to approve an increase of the Community's own resources or, more appropriately, our tax payments to the Community, I suspect that he will find that the Labour party will be united. In his heart he must know that it is improbable that the Conservative party will also be united.

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman seems to have shifted the ground of the crunch question which my hon. Friend asked him. Will he support Mr. Wedgwood Benn's commitment to take Britain out of the EC during his campaigning in Chesterfield? He owes it to the House to tell us whether he will support that commitment.

Mr. Cook: It is plain that Conservative Members are anxious for Mr. Tony Benn's return to the House. Even when he does not have a seat they cannot debate this subject without referring to him. Mr. Benn—I am glad that Conservative Members anticipate his success in Chesterfield—will stand on the same platform that I and the leader of the Labour party endorsed at conference. He put his name to that platform as a member of the national executive committee. That platform was presented unanimously to conference. Moreover, the platform employed exactly the same phrase that the Minister quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as having written in an article. There is no distinction between the document to which Mr. Benn put his name in October and my right hon. Friend's article, which the Minister quoted. I shall campaign with enthusiasm for the election of Mr. Benn in Chesterfield. We look forward to his election.

Viscount Cranborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Benn?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) will be aware that I am standing at the Dispatch Box as the spokesman for the Labour party. I speak to Labour party policy which was approved at conference on a draft which was approved by Mr. Benn. It defeats me how the hon. Gentleman perceives a distinction between my supporting that policy and Mr. Benn drafting that policy.

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman wants to avoid my question.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman dislikes the fact that there is not a difference where he thought that there was one and is now shifting his ground.
The White Paper deals with the period January to June 1983. The Minister rightly suggested that Opposition Members would prefer to forget some of what happened in that time. I concede that without hesitation. However, I was surprised that there were some events in that period which the Minister chose to remember with pride. I was especially struck that he took credit for the approval of the common fisheries policy. I am not sure that that approval is shared by the fishermen of Scotland and England. Indeed, under the CFP our trawler fleet has been more than halved. Moreover, Hull, which used to depend on the trawling industry, no longer has one trawler.
Only yesterday we had a meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in another part of the House. A spokesman for the federation, in a striking though perhaps perplexing metaphor, described the CFP as
a jungle which we cannot see through.
I am happy to campaign until June, though possibly not in landlocked Chesterfield, on the basis of the damage that has been inflicted on our fishing fleet—that affects all constituencies which include a coast — by the Government acceding to the CFP.
Many points in the White Paper lead on to what has happened since June 1983. One of the surreal features about debates such as this is that there is a six or seven month gap between the period that we are debating and the debate. The White Paper takes us no further than Stuttgart. It is interesting how developments covered by the White Paper have run into the sand. We look forward with eager anticipation to reading the White Paper that covers the period July to December 1983.
My plea is that we are not kept waiting for four months before we debate it. We can expect that White Paper's publication in the spring. I hope that the Minister will show a greater sense of urgency in arranging for the House to debate it so that we can discuss developments that took place between July and December 1983 before the European elections. In view of the quickening crisis in the EC there is a quaint irrelevance in our debating developments seven months in arrears. However, that practice has the advantage that we can see what was expected and compare and contrast it with what has happened.
We debated the budget contribution last month. We are due to debate the 1984 budget soon. I take this opportunity to remind the Minister that we have not forgotten about that debate. I shall therefore confine myself to comparing how much developments since the publication of the White Paper have fallen away from the promises that were held out during January to June 1983.
At paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper we learn:
negotiations would be taken forward urgently".
In the past seven months we have seen exactly what urgency means in terms of Council of Ministers' agenda. We can compare what happened with what was promised when the Prime Minister spoke to the House immediately after Stuttgart. She said:
we not only achieved a settlement of the British refund for this year but also made encouraging progress towards a long-term settlement". — [Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 146.]
It is interesting that the Prime Minister used the past tense. With regard to the first clause in that statement, the Prime Minister might have achieved a settlement but she has plainly not yet achieved payment. We are still awaiting one penny of the refund which she assured us was settled in June 1983. Moreover, we cannot receive it until 31 March at the earliest because the European Assembly has frozen it until then.
The Minister asked, perfectly properly, whether the Opposition support the Government in this matter. I shall answer him directly: No, we do not. We think that the time has arrived for the Government to withhold part of our 1984 contributions because of the EC's failure to repay our 1983 refund. It is extraordinary that we should have commenced our first payment for 1984 while we are still waiting for a penny of the 1983 refund.

Mr. Rowland Boyes: I am sure that the Minister is aware that one of the reasons why we are not receiving the refund from the EC is that the Conservative Members of the European Parliament did not support the resolution put forward in that Parliament to try to get it back.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that added information. He observed the circumstances first hand as a member of the European Assembly.

Mr. Robert Jackson: It is not true.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) will have an opportunity to intervene in due course. I understand that there is room for interpretation as to how Members vote in the Strasbourg proceedings. I remember that the same dispute occurred when the refund was dealt with last time, during which a dozen Conservative Members failed to vote, but subsequently claimed that they had. Doubtless the same confusion may exist on this occasion. I would welcome a statement from the hon. Member for Wantage, about whether he fully supported the movement by the British Labour Group within the Strasbourg Assembly to obtain early payment of the British refund. If so, did his colleagues support the movement for an early or immediate payment of the refund?

Mr. Jackson: The Conservative group put down, and voted for, its own resolution.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that its amendments did not seek an early and unconditional repayment of the refund as did the amendment by the British Labour Group.
We have not obtained payment of the refund, which we were told was settled in June. Moreover, the Government have commenced payments to the EC for 1984, which they would have been well advised to withhold, rather than having to go through the same undignified cap-in-hand approach to try to get a refund later this year or early next year.
The second part of the Prime Minister's statement runs:
we … also made encouraging progress towards a long-term settlement".
Hon. Members will note the past tense.
The Minister referred to the recent statement by Mr. Mitterrand. He will also be aware of the similar statement by Claude Cheysson, on Wednesday last, who said:
There is a problem, and it must be dealt with"—
that statement, I agree, is progress.
at least for a certain period.
That statement was made a full seven months after the Stuttgart meeting, when we were told that progress had been made in achieving a long-term settlement. The country that now has the presidency of the Council of Ministers has not accepted that there should be a long-term settlement. It seems that the French are unaware that we achieved progress at Stuttgart towards such a settlement. It is manifest that there is no prospect of the Government securing a permanent settlement of value within the immediate future.
We have reached the same impasse with the common agricultural policy. We would search in vain through documents issued in the past two months to find any impact on the thinking of the current presidency of the

Council of Ministers' concerning reform of the CAP. I shall quote some statements from M. Cheysson's speech to which the Minister did not refer. He said:
They must take account of social realities.
I assume that he means southern French farmers. He also said:
Community preference must be protected and strengthened
which means, when interpreted into idiomatic English, that we must keep out cheaper food imports from the rest of the world. He also said:
There should be an increase in levies on imports of some agriculture products
which is a coded reference to an increased tax on oil, fats and margarines. One of the most objectionable features of the debate on the CAP is that it is seriously proposed that the poor should pay more for margarine to encourage them to consume more expensive butter. There is not much hint in the statements made last week that the Government have made progress in achieving reform of the CAP.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman state the Opposition's policy on this topic? Speeches have been made in the country which express the belief that a deficiency payments scheme for the entire Community would be appropriate. Is that the position, and if so, what costings have been made of its effect on European taxpayers?

Mr. Cook: I shall be happy to deal with that later. I wish to draw the attention of the House once again, as I did during the December debate, to the extent to which the word "reform" has vanished from the Minister's vocabulary. No one since Stuttgart has discussed reforming the CAP. Further progress was made towards vacuity during the statement by the Foreign Secretary at yesterday's Question Time in which he described one of his conditions for an increase in own resources as the
effective control of agricultural and other spending".—
[Official Report, 25 January 1984, Vol. 52, c. 914] and not reform of the CAP.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Selling the pass again.

Mr. Cook: The Minister has not yet sold the pass. My hon. Friend anticipates what he will do. The Minister is preparing the ground carefully and taking us by granny's footsteps towards the point at which he sells the pass.
Price restraint this year is welcome, but it has weaknesses and inadequacies. It is absurd, given the grotesque surplus of dairy products, that no proposal has been made to cut the support price of milk. During the past two years, in which the EC has supposedly attempted to cut milk production, there has been an increase in production of 4 to 5 per cent.
Mr. Wilkinson, the assistant to Mr. Tugendhat. said only last month that if the additional milk that has been produced since 1981—I am not dealing with the base level—were placed in a fleet of milk tankers it would stretch, bumper to bumper from London to Athens and back. Given that enormous milk surplus and the failure to control growth, surely we can expect in the annual price review, not merely a price freeze, but an absolute cut to diminish the surplus. Instead, we have the continued proposal to phase out the butter subsidy, which will have the daft and perverse efect of increasing the price of dairy products in Britain.

Mr. Jackson: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall not give way. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience must be consuming him.
While the price freeze is welcome, it does not go far enough. Even if it did, and represented what the Foreign Secretary might accept as "effective control" over agriculture spending, effective control of spending within the CAP must not be confused with its reform. The basic lunacy of the CAP is that it insists on raising the price of food so that it can provide an adequate income for small farmers. To do that it has to raise the price to a level that consumers cannot afford to pay and above the level at which it can buy food in the outside market.
That has two predictable consequences. It means that the large farmers grow fat on the same high prices which are supposed to protect the small farmer. We are left with increasingly large surpluses as the fat farmers bring forth greater produce, which the consumers find more and more difficult to afford to buy. Food mountains are inherent in the structure. It obliges British consumers, including the 4 million unemployed, to subsidise Sir Henry Plumb, to give but one name at random.
We shall not accept that the CAP has been reformed until the burden of social support for farming income is shifted from the consumers' shoulders to where it belongs, on the broader shoulders of the taxpayer. We want the burden of social support—that is what is meant in terms of the small farmer's income—shifted to the national taxpayer. If the French choose, for perhaps good social reasons, to sustain large numbers working on small, uneconomic farms in the rural areas, that is a matter for them, but they must bear the cost of that policy. It is wrong to expect the British consumer to meet the cost of that policy in his bread basket.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if that support for the farmer were paid for by an annual contribution, which can be discussed and complained about by those who pay for it, rather than by an increase in own resources, which would be automatic not shown in public expenditure figures, and which would thus put under the carpet the real cost of supporting the farming community?

Mr. Cook: That anticipates the point to which I am drifting. A happy event is coming our way. I do not regard it with the same gloom and doom as it is sometimes regarded by the Foreign Office or the Euro-fanatics. A moment of financial truth is dawning in the Community. It is about to bump up against the upper ceiling. That brings me back to what I said earlier about this year's price freeze. No one in the Chamber, including the Minister, can be in the least doubt that, had heads not been bumping up against that ceiling, we should have had not the price freeze, but the same spendthrift policies that have existed in previous years. That is why it is so essential that the financial ceiling is retained.

Mr. Jackson: When talking about future policy will the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) please tell us how much discrimination against British producers he would be prepared to accept, in the name of social payments by other member states to their farmers, and by how much it would be necessary to cut the price of milk to achieve market balance?

Mr. Cook: Over a period the cut in the milk price would need to be significant. I do not deny that. The

immediate effect of us saying that we are not going to continue the annual ratchet of further increases, but that we intend to look for a cut in the price to find what the market will bear, would be a signal to the whole of the agricultural industry, which hitherto has guided its produce to obtain the biggest subsidy and the fattest price through the CAP.
It is clear from what we have heard in the past few months in the Chamber that the Government are preparing to sell out on own resources. This is exactly the point on which they should not sell out. I hope that the Government will not put the House in the embarassing position of having to reject such an increase in own resources. Opposition to such a proposal will not come from the Labour Benches alone. I can, though, assure the Minister of support from the alliance Bench and I have no doubt that he will rejoice in its support. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) has said that there is a case for an increase in own resources. I assume, therefore, that the alliance will be prepared to vote for any increase, however tawdry the settlement.
We have the SDP record to guide us. We do not need to look to the future. One sixth of the parliamentary party was once President of the EC. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) had control over and responsibility for agricultural policy. It is worth reminding the House of what Agra Europe's director said when he attacked the right hon. Gentleman for his miserable failure
to tackle the problem of farm surpluses".
He said:
absolutely nothing has been done by the Jenkins Commission to bring the problems of the Common Agricultural Policy under control. Those problems are, as they were in January 1976: increasing surplus of the major agricultural commodities, increasing costs of disposing of these surpluses, and increasing disparity between the incomes of the rural rich and the rural poor.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead must take responsibility, but he has avoided coming to the Chamber to do so. Given that record of responsibility, I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman will vote with the Minister for an increase in own resources, however miserably the Minister has failed to achieve the two conditions. We shall oppose the Minister in the Lobby so that the social cost of agriculture policies can be transferred to national budgets, where they belong.
The Opposition have said repeatedly that one of the main objectives in reforming the CAP is to shift the balance of expenditure from agriculture to the other areas of Community expenditure. When we examine those other areas we find that some budgets are cast out in the shadows of CAP expenditure. For example, the regional programme receives 5·4 per cent. of the total expenditure, the social programme 6 per cent. and the research and energy programme 6·6 per cent. That compares with the 66 per cent. that goes on agriculture expenditure. Although we all say that those areas should receive more attention and more money—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Who says that?

Mr. Cook: I should not have included the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I do not claim to speak for him, but I can claim to carry both Dispatch Boxes with me.

Mr. Budgen: If the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in favour of increased payments from the social


fund to this country, including Ulster, does he agree that, inevitably, that will result in interference in our domestic affairs because the Community will say that it will pay only when it approves of the institutions to which it pays money?

Mr. Cook: I accept that, of course, a degree of modification in this country's policies will be necessary to accommodate some of the expenditure required from Brussels. Some people in the country, and perhaps in the Chamber, might welcome modification under that pressure. I do not duck the principle. We pay too little attention to these areas of expenditure.
I shall begin by referring to the ESPRIT programme, to which reference is made in paragraph 6.8 of the document. Before Christmas I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the Government's decision to withhold their contributions to ESPRIT. It is a programme to fund and facilitate collaboration and research in high technology by European companies. It is important for Europe. It is exactly the type of programme that is necessary if Europe is to respond collectively to the greater economic weight of the USA and Japan. It is also important to Britain because, despite the industrial dereliction of the past four or five years, Britain retains an important lead in high technology.
Of the 36 private projects designated under ESPRIT, no fewer than 21 involve United Kingdom companies. It is a matter of acute concern that the Government are blocking that programme. The reply that I received from the Foreign Secretary was pusillanimous. He sheltered behind the attitude being taken by the West German Government. I understand that at Monday's meeting the West German Government put forward a compromise to allow expenditure on the programme so that it could go ahead. Did the British Government accept that compromise, or do they still intend to block any funds for the programme — even though it is already one year behind schedule?
The sums involved are modest. The total programme, spread throughout Europe, will cost less than £200 million per annum. That is modest compared with the extraordinarily large sums that we pour into the maw of the CAP. It beggars belief that we can find billions of pounds to subsidise the dairy industry, but cannot find £200 million to support the information technologies of tomorrow. It is politically perverse of the Government to take that action because they are jeopardising much of the support that they might otherwise receive on issues of more central interest to the British case.
That negative attitude is betrayed in the White Paper in a number of other areas such as regional, social and industrial expenditure. There is a penalty for not using the funds positively, which is that we lose out on the very areas where we might wring some benefit—albeit small — from the great expenditure that we pour into agriculture in other European countries.
There is no better example of that than the Belfast project, which comes under the integrated operations programme described in paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper. Only two projects have been launched under that programme—one in Naples and the other in Belfast. Both projects were initiated for discussion at about the same time in 1980. They therefore provide us with

something approaching a controlled experiment for judging the Government's success in obtaining funds compared with another member state.
The project in Naples is now in full swing. Expenditure is being made on infrastructure to provide sanitation, transport, training and industrial investment. About 15,000 jobs are being provided directly by the programme, and many thousands more by the construction associated with the programme. Approval was not finally obtained for the Belfast project until May 1983. There was a three-year delay in discussion while the haggling continued between London and Brussels. There was a spectacular piece of incompetence in that the British Government proposed to use almost all the expenditure on housing, only to discover after two years of negotiation that that was outwith the rules for eligibility of expenditure under the programme.
There is an unedifying contrast between the Italians, whose programme is in full swing, and the British who have taken the same time simply to reach the starting line—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been generous in giving way. I must now make some progress with my speech.
I have sat through many previous debates with the Foreign Secretary in his previous incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer. When we debated the economy he was given to treating anything that happened in Italy with a certain sense of derision. Indeed, to suggest that the Italians were doing something in economics was to prove that there was no point in examining that idea. I find it a rather odd commentary on those many merry jests that I had to endure in our economic debates that we now find that the Italians have been successful in getting under way their project—which started at the same time as our project—substantially faster than us. It must be an illuminating comment on the failure of the current Administration to use positively the funds that would be of interest and value to the British people.
We can see that same attitude in the social fund. 'The White Paper provides a revealing illustration of the Government's priorities. In the three pages dealing with the social fund there is not a single mention of expenditure on the training of women, although the discussion on that took up a large part of the six months covered by the White Paper. It is not really surprising that the Government wish to draw a veil over that side of their activities. In 1982, of the expenditure on the training of women under the social fund Germany received 57 per cent., France received 23 per cent., Italy received 8 per cent. and Britain received 5 per cent. It is not surprising that the Government's failure to use the opportunity for the training of women has earned them the clear and overt criticism of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
That attitude betrays the Government's Victorian prejudices towards a woman's place in the work force. That prejudice was demonstrated in last July's rather sad debate, when a Minister deliberately mocked the consultative document on women's rights that he was obliged to introduce by an EC directive. That process of sham consultation is a familiar response by the Government to EC initiatives in that area. They did the same with the consultation document under the Vredeling


directive. That document plumbs new depths of cynicism because it was accompanied by a press release showing that the Government are wholly opposed to it, and inviting evidence from business to support their prejudices.
I have no doubt that the Government will obtain such evidence. Some companies will supply them with evidence that is as tendentious as the press release that accompanied the document. They may even obtain evidence from Caterpillar which, two or three years ago, lobbied intensely in Strasbourg and Brussels against the directive. In 1981 that company wrote to Members of the European Assembly saying that there was no need for legislation to oblige it to give information to its employees because it already made a "substantial effort" to do that. On 31 August 1983, Caterpillar announced the closure of its Birtley works with the loss of 1,000 jobs, with no consultation whatsoever with the work force. The first that it read about the closure of its plant was in the local newspaper. That practical example of the extent to which working people were denied information about the future of their plant and of their company should weigh far more heavily in the scales than any mountain of paper of factitious responses that the Government get as a result of trailing their coat on the consultative document.
Nowhere in the European capitals is there more fierce resistance to initiatives than in London. Business Europe this month says that Dublin is "hesitant" about the directive, that Germany is "lukewarm", but that Britain is "vehemently opposed" to it. If in that area the Community faces semi-paralysis—to use the words of the Foreign Secretary—it it is because the Government block every positive move.
The tragedy is that we are denying our industry and our working people precisely those benefits that they could obtain in return for expenditure on French agriculture. The Government need not think that that failure will remain forever hidden by tough talking about the budget, especially as that tough talk appears to be ending in failure.
Nor are we surprised at the Government's attitude towards progress. After all, it is the same Government who have persistently undermined the rights of workers at home and abdicated their responsibility to intervene in the economy to protect the jobs of our workers. It is not surprising to find the same dogmatic prejudices animating their policies in Europe as animate their polices at home. Just as we condemn the damage that they have inflicted on society in Britain, so tonight we shall take pleasure in voting to repudiate the same policies that are damaging the wider European Community.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), which was rather unusual. It did not entirely clarify our concept of the Labour party's attitude to the EEC, which is clearly still developing. It will be interesting to see where the Opposition end up.
We have had many of these debates. They are usually rather boring, except to the fanatics on both sides of the arguments, who always like to exchange insults. This debate is rather unusual in two ways. First, while in previous debates we have all aired our complaints about the Common Market and suggested what needs to be done

without the slightest hope that we could achieve anything, we now have a chance of getting something done. The reason for that is simple: the cash is running out.
However, having read the report, and having listened to the Minister's excellent speech and other recent ministerial speeches, I am scared that we are about to throw away a unique opportunity to achieve reform which is open to us this year and may never be open again. If we accept the proposals to increase own resources and then to give power to European Parliament and others to increase the own resources element by further stages of 0·4 per cent., Parliament will lose an opportunity that we have never had before and may never have again.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend should be aware that the British Government and a number of other Community Governments have made it clear that in no circumstances will they agree to the Commission's proposal to enable the European Parliament to make further increases in the level of own resources. We have made it abundantly clear that at any stage any increase in own resources could be authorised only by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers ratified by national Parliaments.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to have that assurance, but I hope that the Minister will accept that even if we allow 1 per cent. to be increased to 1·4 per cent. and no further, the opportunity of achieving real reforms may not arise again for five, six or seven years. In the last 10 years we have not been able to achieve any reforms—although the Government achieved a great deal in getting rebates on our contributions — and there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time if we allow own resources to be increased.
My fear, like that of the hon. Member for Livingston, is that the Government not only do not seem to be hopeful of reforming the common agricultural policy but do not seem even to be asking for reform. I accept that it would be difficult to persuade the continentals to accept fundamental reforms of the CAP, but it is clear from the report and from the declaration adopted by the European Council in Stuttgart that all the countries of the Community agree that we are not in the business of looking for reform of the CAP. The wording of the Stuttgart declaration was that the basic principles of the common agricultural policy would be observed in keeping with the objectives of article 39 of the treaty.
The only reference in the statement is to adaptations and adjustments of the policy. The basic principles, which I think every Conservative would find deplorable if applied to any industry other than agriculture, have not been challenged. The Minister spoke well today and abandoned some of the silliness of previous debates. He should ask himself seriously whether it would be sensible for this country to ask for reform of the CAP, bearing in mind that it is an appalling policy which deserves to be changed. If during the negotiations we do not ask for it to be changed, we will certainly not get another chance.
The second major change has been the adjustment in the apparent policy of the Labour party. In all previous debates of the six-month periods, the Conservatives have said that the Common Market was the best thing since sliced bread and Labour Members have said that they want to get out quickly. The situation has been ridiculous. Government spokesmen have had to search for any possible trend, statistic or clue that might convince people


that the Common Market is helpful to Britain—and on the Opposition side the reverse has been the case. We have read silly propaganda pieces — churned out by the Commission, the European Movement and sadly, on occasion, the Conservative party — about the massive increase in Japanese investment, the fact that food prices have not really risen much, and all our trade with the Community.
The Minister was very helpful. He did not engage in silly political points. I hope that in future debates we will not have to go through the nonsense of trying to find figures and statistics to prove what is not true.
Despite those improvements, what worries me is that, although we have been in the Common Market for 10 years, no attempt appears to have been made by the Government to quantify the real effect of membership. They have provided only slogans. Such an assessment would give us a clear idea of what our direction should be and what changes we should seek.
After 10 years in the EEC, and now that reform is a possibility, the Government should make a serious attempt to look at the reasons for, and implications of the alarming downturn in our trade with Common Market countries. In each of the 10 years before we joined we made a profit on manufacturing trade with the Common Market. In every year since we joined we have made a substantial loss in the trade in manufactures. It has now reached alarming proportions. In a parliamentary answer the other day, the Minister of State told me that even in the first nine months of 1973 we had a deficit of over £5 billion on trade in manufactures. We sold Europe goods worth about £11 billion, and Europe sold us goods worth over £16 billion.
There may be many reasons for that. It may be inevitable that as a member of the Common Market the United Kingdom is a peripheral part of a large area, and that manufacturing industry, investment and decision making will pour towards the centre of the Community.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's figures are correct and the trend is as he has described it, but one can draw quite different conclusions about their implications.

Mr. Taylor: That is why I want the Government to consider them. It may be that the trend is natural and cannot be altered. It may be caused by the extra cost of the CAP and the other consequences of membership. It may be caused by faults in British industry, which does not like dealing with countries where English is not the spoken commercial language. It may be that our investment has been wrongly directed.
The general view is that it is our fault—that the lazy British workers and hopeless British managers are to blame. If that is so, why is our trade with the rest of the world so good? Every year we make up for the horrendous deficit on our Common Market trade by substantial profits in our trade in manufactures with other countries. I hope that the Minister will accept—in the new atmosphere that prevails—that I am not trying to make an anti-Market point. The reason may have nothing to do with the Common Market. However, we must find out why our trade in manufactures with the Common Market has undergone such a disastrous slide when compared with our trade for the rest of the world.
The job implications are substantial. We have heard much silly nonsense from propaganda organisations about

the fact that 2 million jobs depend on the Common Market. If we accept that, it must also be true that 3 million jobs in the Common Market depend upon British trade.
Obviously, we both depend on each other, and that is important. But surely the slump in our manufacturing trade might point to the reason why Britain seems to have suffered more in economic terms than most other European nations. On the basis of those figures, our membership of the Common Market and the consequences of it—which may be the Common Market's fault, our fault or nobody's fault — have led to an increase of about 700,000 in the numbers of those unemployed. The Government must look seriously at that point.
I should like the Government to tell us about the changes that they want to make in the common agricultural policy. The Under-Secretary of State once again said today that Britain had to limit spending on the CAP. We must cap such expenditure, just as we are telling bad local authorities in Britain that they must not spend more than a certain amount. However, the Minister must be aware that to do that has policy implications. If I tell my wife that she can spend only half of the amount she spent last week, there are policy implications. She may change the shop at which she buys her food, I may not get breakfast in the morning or she may not buy any more clothes. Whatever the result, there are policy implications. I am worried, because the Government have not given us the slightest clue as to how a reduction in agricultural spending can be achieved. That is not good enough.
I appreciate the Government's difficulty. In the silly rate capping Bill, we found that the Government wanted to change everything about rates with the exception of charging farmers' rates. We know that farmers have enormous political power. Indeed, the whole City of London is involved. They are all interested in keeping up the artificially high price of land. But how do the Government suggest that agricultural spending should be controlled? Are we to limit the production of our farmers? If so, how? Do the Government intend to tell every farm or every country to reduce its production? Are we to tell the Milk Marketing Board that it should buy only a certain proportion of milk? If the Common Market is to take us seriously, we must give it some idea of how the job can be done.

Mr. Spearing: From an analytical point of view, I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little too simplistic. Is it not possible for the amount spent on the CAP to be pegged and the policies — whether good or bad — to remain? Any shortfall in EEC agricultural support could be made up by national measures. Surely that is one possibility. I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed another point. The Prime Minister and the Minister talk about the effective control of agricultural spending, but that does not necessarily mean capping or stopping expenditure. It could mean a claimed control over the increase in spending. That is quite different.

Mr. Taylor: Sadly, the Prime Minister has said that a condition for increased resources is not stopping or freezing agricultural spending but curbing the rate of increase in such expenditure. As the increase last year was 40 per cent., it is not asking a great deal to curb it. We must give our farmers and the Common Market some idea of how the job can be done.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether between us my hon. Friend and I can help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who mentioned the possibility of deficiency payments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a very honest gentleman and I do not think that he has had enough time in which to consider the implications of deficiency payments. He said that if we had a system of deficiency payments it would cost a great deal of money. However, he must bear in mind that if there was system of deficiency payments other moneys would be available from the CAP as presently constituted to be put towards them. The price of food would be considerably lower than it is now, so the taxpayer would have more money in his pocket. Under a system of world prices and deficiency payments we would not have to pay a massive impost for the import of preference food from the ECC. Therefore, although deficiency payments may cost money, the cost to this country, to the taxpayer and to the consumer will be significantly less than the current cost under the CAP, and thereby we might make the significant savings that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) seeks.

Mr. Taylor: There is not the slightest chance of getting the Common Market or the NFU to agree to a system of deficiency payments. I should like to see such a system but I do not think that it is a starter.
The Government have not spelt out their intentions. Any significant reform of the CAP would probably hit our farmers harder than those on the continent. If we said that the production of milk had to be curbed to 1981 levels, it would hit our farmers harder, because the increase in our production has been greater. If we told every wheat producer that he had to produce only 80 per cent. of what he produced in 1981, it would hit our farmers harder than those on the continent, because our efficiency and production are higher than theirs.
If we sought meaningful reform of the CAP, we would find to our horror that it would hit our farmers harder than those on the continent. Therefore, reform of the Common Market cannot be achieved. In addition, I very much doubt the Government's willingness to ask for it. If we accept that, there are only two ways out of the budget dilemma. One way was suggested by the hon. Member for Livingston — that, if such agricultural nonsense is to continue we must set up other policies and have a CAP for steel, shipping and for many other industries as well as for regional and social funds. There could be a flood of public expenditure from the Common Market to balance the money spent on agriculture.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend must be aware that the overall subsidy to agriculture as an industry, and as a percentage of the return on that industry, is smaller than the domestic subsidies given to most of the major industries, and particularly to the steel industry. Therefore, my hon. Friend is asking for a mammoth increase in subsidies in addition to the domestic subsidies that are already given. That could only exacerbate the present situation.

Mr. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was not agreeing in any way with the hon. Member for Livingston. I was pointing out that the hon. Gentleman had suggested one way out of the dilemma, although I would deplore it just as every

Conservative Member should do. We should not try to solve the problem by trying to balance a wasteful and foolish agricultural policy with similar policies that are set up to increase the already massive public expenditure in other areas. I believe that there is only one way out of the dilemma, and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously. It is to abolish the CAP and to let it wither away. The Government may say that it would be a breach of our obligations under the treaty of Rome. However, it would not be. The article only calls on member states to have a common agricultural policy that is fair to producers and consumers alike.

Mr. Jackson: How could the Common Market survive if it was abolished for agricultural products?

Mr. Taylor: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am sorry that I have taken so long to make my points, but there have been many interventions. However, others may find that they do not now have to make their speeches.
If we abolished the CAP, the appalling support mechanism that goes with it and the dumping, every country could decide how it wanted to support agriculture. Inter-community trading could be fixed at levels decided by the Commission and the support given to one's domestic agriculture could be agreed by the Commission, thereby ensuring a common agricultural policy that is fair to consumers and producers alike. Hon. Members may say that the French and Germans would never agree to that. At present, they would not agree, but if the Government stood firm about not increasing resources they would be driven to it. It is the only answer unless the nonsense of the CAP is to continue.
I appeal to the Minister and the Government to accept that the CAP is not only a piece of Socialist nonsense with protectionism, planning, controls and so on, but an evil policy in respect of the Third world. All of us are aware that, although we are entitled, if we so wish, to give every farmer in Britain or France £1 million a week for doing nothing and that is our business, we are not entitled to cause ruin, hardship, hunger and sometimes death to the people of poor countries struggling to build up their agriculture. They will survive in the world only if they get a reasonable return on their production. For example, in Pakistan there is a lot of poverty. It is an ideal country for growing sugar. However, the poor people there can obtain only £100 per tonne for it because the Common Market is dumping surplus sugar all over the world, wherever it can. Our farmers receive their guaranteed £340 a tonne, and every pound of the sugar can be bought. We can have whatever economic nonsense we like, but I hope that the Government will give me a clear assurance that in the long term they will not accept the continuance of a policy that causes terrible hardship to the poorest countries which are desperately trying to build up their agriculture.
I know the silly arguments of Opposition Members. Some say that if we have this policy it will save us from importing. We could put forward the same argument to provide for banana growing in Southend as a major industry. I am sure that we could have an efficient banana growing industry by using glasshouses, and that the industry would create jobs and save us from importing, but it would be nonsense to grow bananas in Southend when there are plenty of places in the world where they could be grown efficiently and cheaply to provide a reasonable living standard for the poor. I hope that there is all-party


agreement that, despite what we do with the CAP, we must stop the agricultural policy from causing genuine hardship, hunger and famine in the poor countries by dumping food.
First, the Government must decide that they will not try to resolve the problems facing us by having extra public spending. Those hon. Members who, like me, voted last week with the Government for necessary curbs on public spending would feel let down if the Government were to agree to a scheme whereby there would be massive public spending increases directed from Europe.
Secondly, I appeal to the Government to make a genuine attempt to examine whether there is any need for CAP. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has said that the policy is vital to the continuation of the EEC. I am sure that that is not true. Surely the agricultural policy is the one factor that sets the British, the French and the Germans at each other's throats. They are always squabbling. The abolition of the CAP would ensure that the countries of the Common Market could work together more sensibly and agreeably in bringing forward policies of mutual interest.
Thirdly, will the Government give us an assurance that we will stop being the mugs of Europe? As a person interested in the steel industry, I am appalled that in a short time we have cut our manpower in the steel industry by more than half because of a Common Market request. In the meantime, other countries have not made cuts and in some cases they have increased their steel production. Just the other day, during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, British Steel told us that the Common Market had instructed British Steel to make cuts and abolish another strip mill. We must stop being the mugs of Europe.
I hope that the Government, to show that they are serious, will tell us about their fall back plan if we do not reach agreement at the discussions. If the cash is to stop coming from Europe our farmers—they do not have any money — will want to know whether the intervention board will continue spending. Will there still be intervention buying? Will people be given subsidies for exporting goods to Russia? The Government are obliged to make a statement about what will happen if the plan goes wrong. What is the contingency plan? Will we continue paying our farmers and those who export food to Russia and elsewhere if the money stops coming from the Common Market? If the Government expect to be treated seriously, they should make their fall back plan clear. What I have said might be a basis for proceeding. It is important that we do not agree to increase resources unless we can see a great deal for that approach.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I have no ability to control the length of speeches. I realise that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was interrupted several times. We would be able to include most hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate if they spoke for 10 rather than 25 minutes.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to follow your guidelines.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made a number of valid points, and perhaps the most valid was that this has been a constructive debate. Hon. Members might recall that the speakers so far have been

the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Southend, East who is still associated in many people's minds with Glasgow. It may be thought that the Government Whips' office has now had its way and we are now having a debate on "Scotland in Europe", as the Whips have been requesting for some time.
Given the necessary restrictions on time I shall address myself to the White Paper, "Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983", and apply its words to the problems that my constituents feel ought to be considered and debated. If they do not deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis, they observe them on television day after day. They therefore stand aside and ask, "What contribution has Europe made? What contribution is Europe capable of making? How. in the light of the White Paper, can the House invite improvements?"
I have three major points: first, the White Paper's reference to industrial and regional policy, including the policy on coal and steel which is an appropriate subject in my constituency and Scotland generally; secondly, development aid; and, thirdly, peace. Has the Community been the influence for peace that we were led to believe it would be during the great debate on the referendum? What is the Community's record in terms of human rights?
Europe is facing the great problem of 14 million unemployed, including nearly 4 million in this country. Europe's problem is reflected in the problems facing hon. Members, especially in my part of the country. I realise that those problems are shared elsewhere. In my constituency, far from seeing the type of industrial expansion that was promised, especially during the debate on the referendum, we have seen the contraction and almost total decline of industry with the closure of Cardowan colliery, the last pit in my constituency. We have not seen the type of initiative from Europe to provide new jobs that many on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the major argument in Europe, would wish.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southend, East said that many people frown upon the reductions in jobs within the steel industry. The steel industry in this country is working below capacity. It is nonsense, given the contribution that Britain has made to European policies on steel, that there should be any doubt about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh in Lanarkshire and that we should have suffered job losses in other parts of the steel industry. I believe that, because of the sacrifice, we are entitled to say to those in other parts of Europe who are asking for more that enough is enough. Far from conceding jobs, and given our declining industries, we should say that we are looking for a greater share in the employment potential of the Community. Two thirds of the EEC's budget is spent on the common agricultural policy, 5·4 per cent. on regional aid, 6 per cent. on social spending, 3 per cent. on development aid and 6·6 per cent. on research and energy.
Many people see a relationship between those functions and wish to see more achievement than is reflectd in the White Paper. Local communities believe that the benefits of our association with Europe should be more tangible and that, if we have a responsibility to Europe, Europe has an equal responsibility to us.
We recently had a most interesting Adjournment debate on possible job losses at Bathgate. In his opening speech


today, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, with characteristic modesty, did not refer to the excellent speech that he made on that occasion. When he and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) emphasised the possible job losses at British Leyland, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a most interesting observation which is well worth repeating today. Referring to recent industrial history, the Under-Secretary of State said:
The result has been too much capacity chasing to little business within Europe, which has reduced volumes and drastically squeezed margins throughout the industry.
I mentioned a moment ago that, at the same time as it attempted to weather these storms in Europe, Leyland also faced considerable difficulties in its export markets. These were caused largely by the severe economic difficulties of many important Third world countries, which led to very sharp falls in the demand". — [Official Report, 23 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 748.]
I acknowledge the accuracy of that summary but I urge the House and those involved in the discussions to recognise that it is not too difficult to persuade our constituents that the fight for jobs is consistent with asking the Community to give greater priority to development aid. Indeed, enlightened self-interest makes the proposition attractive. We can help our own industries while giving greater priority to development aid than is reflected in the White Paper. In dealing with the Lomé convention the White Paper illustrates the grave problems of world hunger and food supply. In the discussion on commitment to aid, I have no doubt that the writer of the text on page 8 was well intentioned, but a great deal more imagination could have been shown.
In the referendum campaign the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) impressed many voters by suggesting that the history of war in Europe provided a case for our closer involvement in the Community. If the British people believe that, they must be very disappointed at the contents of the White Paper. There is a greater danger of nuclear war in Europe now than there was when we entered the Community. There is tension in the middle east. The problem of Palestine and Israel has grown since we entered the Community. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) rightly stressed the need for more consideration and debate on the growing problem of the Lebanon, which is also mentioned in the White Paper.
Above all, in recent times we have become increasingly aware of the problems of central America. I have criticised the White Paper, as was my intention, but it may well be right, if indeed it is not an understatement, to say that a political, not a military, solution is needed in that part of the world. President Reagan may pay little attention to the views expressed by the British Parliament and Government, but perhaps he will take on board the views expressed in a document presumably supported by other European countries.
A few weeks ago in the far east I had the privilege to have discussions with representatives of the Asian nations. They were greatly involved in human rights and had specifically excluded Sri Lanka from membership of their organisation. I regret to say that at the same time one of the Ministers of State, Foreign Office described that

country to the House as one of the gems in the crown of democracy among the various countries with which we are associated. A great deal of progress remains to be made in the search for peace associated with the commitment to human rights.
In November, the Foreign Secretary, in a speech in London, referred to the Stuttgart conference and events in Williamsburg. Ministers constantly refer to Stuttgart, Athens and the rest, but my greatest regret is that opportunities have constantly been missed. Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of 1983 was Williamsburg. At the time of the general election the Government seemed to appreciate the importance and potential of the conference far less than did other countries attending.
The White Paper urges the Government and the Community to take these matters seriously. I sincerely hope that the Government will take firmly on board the subjects of peace, human rights and the contribution that Europe can make. I believe that Britain's contribution will be all the better for that.

Mr. John Stokes: This is the first time that I have addressed the House on EEC membership since the United Kingdom entered the Community. Although always broadly in favour of the idea of the Community, especially as support for NATO and as an expression of the solidarity of the West—the old ideal of Christendom, as it were—I have never been an unqualified champion of all aspects of the EEC.
I have always been concerned, for instance, about the role of the Assembly, or the Parliament as it is now called. Personally, I should prefer to feel that my country was represented in Brussels solely by its Prime Minister, its Foreign Secretary or its Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, responsible to this House rather than by a collection of people who are supposed directly to represent very large constituencies in the United Kingdom.
I do not wish the EEC Parliament to have any more power than it already has and I certainly do not want a federated Europe. The approach of direct elections in June makes it especially appropriate to dwell on proposals put forward by the European Parliament for constitutional reform of the Community. As the House will know, the European Parliament is to consider a proposal for a new treaty of European union. The essence of the change is to effect a shift of power away from the executive Council of Ministers who represent national Governments in favour of a system in which the Parliament's power will be greater than in its present role.
I view these developments with foreboding, because they revive in a powerful way the old arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament that we thought we had settled to our reasonable satisfaction upon accession in 1973. For all their imperfections, the current constitutional arrangements of the treaty of Rome in my view maintain a reasonable balance between the sovereign claims of national Governments on the one hand, and the desire for greater integration on the other. I believe the proposed treaty would tilt the balance unacceptably.
Those of us who support the Common Market do so partly because we know that the changes it proposes take a long time to come to fruition, and thus give member states a chance to prepare and adapt. At present, measures that are liked can be delayed and amended by the Council of Ministers, and this is no bad safeguard. We also support


the Community because we know that the grounds on which legal changes may be put forward are limited to areas where the functioning of the Common Market is directly affected.
The proposed treaty is to be based on the principle that the Community should act jointly only where this would be more effective than members states acting alone. I find this too vague for comfort and, to the extent that a more powerful European Parliament would find itself at loggerheads with national Governments, this strikes me not as an expression of democracy but a denial of democracy.
Most worrying of all perhaps is the abandonment, after a 10-year transitional period, of the national veto in matters of vital national importance. We should vigorously resist this. We should be astute to resist a reformed Community that weakens the authority of national Governments and that can launch irresistible changes on the United Kingdom and its people.
The White Paper covers a vast area of subjects. The EEC does not yet have a harmonised foreign policy, and I believe it may take a generation to reach that stage, but I think the EEC has had from time to time, and can have, a useful collective view. We were certainly very glad in this country, during the Falklands conflict, to have the support of the European Community. On the middle east the White Paper in its EEC policy gives a fair place to the rights of Palestinians, and is probably the only counterpart, however small, to the immensely powerful Jewish lobby in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, I believe the EEC appears to have a far more balanced view of Lebanon, Syria and Israel than, for instance, President Reagan. I hope the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will continue to work very closely with President Mitterrand and the other European leaders in this matter.
I welcome the decision by Spain to reduce tariffs on some Community car imports, but all of us in the west midlands feel that Spain still has a long way to go before the tariffs are fair compared with our own.
As regards Gibraltar, I hope there will be no question of Spain joining the EEC as a full member until she has given satisfactory assurances about the future of that territory.
I also welcome the EEC's attempts to take defensive action against unjustifiable trading practices by some countries, and above all by Japan, although I am sorry that these moves take such a long time. Our trade to EEC countries, although very large, has been disappointing compared with our imports from those countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out in his, as I thought, fair and powerful speech. The shops here, as we all know, are filled with EEC products, and that visibly demonstrates, I am afraid, to some extent the lack of competitiveness in British firms. In cars, household appliances, television sets, electrical goods, clothing and shoes we have seen massive import penetration from the other EEC countries. Things are slowly improving. Let us hope, for instance, that we can greatly increase our exports to Germany now that that country is coming out of the slump. Recovery here, I believe, is sound and well-based, but still has far to go. Unfortunately, except in cars, it has not yet reached the west midlands.
I do not believe that the EEC should be about matters of trade only. It ought to be about noble ideals. The fact

that we Europeans are no longer killing each other, as we have been doing for centuries is after all, my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, a massive step forward.
The other day in Strasbourg I met a German of my age, a real Prussian, with a big head, short hair and almost no neck. He explained how he had been in the German army on the Russian front in the first months of the war, and he said how cold it was, particularly as they had no overcoats.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I wonder how he described the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stokes: That is a very good point. After a typically turbid session of the Council of Europe, with all its longueurs and limitations—I do not know the European Parliament, but I expect it is worse—I suddenly began to see what we are all trying to do—in the Council of Europe, in the EEC, in the Western European Union— with all the problems of the excess of butter, the stupidities of the CAP and the unfair budget. We are not, at least, shooting at each other, as I shot at Germans and as my father did, and as the German and his father shot at us and the French. As I told the German this, I saw tears pour down his stern cheeks.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) because I have always regarded our membership of the European Economic Community to be as natural as the fact that my county is a member of the British Parliament. My reason is that by sheer chance—it had little to do with me — I was born on 6 June 1944. Indeed, my parents have told me on occasion that they were going to call me Montgomery as a result. I have always regarded the fact that they did not as my first political break because there are certain problems with getting Penhaligon on a political sticker, let alone Montgomery Penhaligon. The fact of such a coincidence clearly has an effect on one's life.
I regard our membership of the European Community as something to be welcomed. I have always welcomed it. Indeed, it was one of the fundamental reasons why I chose to join the Liberal party some 20 years ago, as opposed to some other organisation in which it might have proved slightly easier to get elected to the House.
I am not a regular contributor to debates on Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) is currently in Moscow with the leader of my party, serving the nation more usefully perhaps than by contributing yet again to a debate on Europe. I see no reason why the Liberal Bench should be ashamed of that excursion from our shores.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doone Valley): Since the hon. Member is explaining the unfortunate absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) perhaps he could explain, first, where the hon. Members representing his partners in the alliance are, and why they are not present. Perhaps he could also explain whether he is speaking on their behalf.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Alliance makes a far bigger impact in this House than its numbers represent. Indeed, if he applies some secondary school mathematics to the subject, he will find


that the alliance has as high a proportion of its membership here today as has any other party. In that respect we can probably beat the Labour party's representation in the Chamber by perhaps 0·1 per cent., though I admit that the Conservative party must be in the lead, with nearly 20 out of its 390 Members in attendance. As for my Social Democrat friends, where they are just now I do not know; nor am I responsible.
The irony of the situation is that while the Conservative party negotiated the terms of our membership of the Common Market, it seems to have been forgotten in the debate that it was the Labour party, when in government, which renegotiated the terms, and that was the time when all the reforms which Labour Members claim are absolutely essential—I agree about some—should have been made.
My recollection of that renegotiation was that it produced avalanches of paper—even more paper than is complained of by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—but no discernible progress on any issue of whatever level of significance to which one chooses to apply one's mind. The ironies of these debates are extraordinary.
My party looks forward to a growth in the Community because we believe in it. However, we take the view that there are some fundamental issues, to which reference has been made in the debate, that represent a hurdle over which the whole Community will have to jump before we move into another spell of progress along the lines that we wish to take. Agriculture is clearly the key to that.
While I am aware that I am in an urban-dominated House, it has struck me, while listening to the references made today to agriculture, that some hon. Members think that agriculture is something that happens somewhere else. Occasionally I discuss agriculture with urban friends in my party, some of whom constantly refer to food as items produced by Tesco and Sainsbury. An operation takes place before that stage, to which it would be unwise not to apply our minds occasionally. That stage occurs in the soil of our land.
My first complaint about the Government is that not many months ago the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food attended a meeting of my county's NFU and to a question about what he wanted Cornish farmers to do he replied, "Produce, produce, produce." When questioned further about that surprising statement —given the situation over milk in Europe and the fact that Cornwall depends on little other than milk production —he clearly emphasised that he thought that there was every reason for Britain, Europe, the whole democratic West, the Third world and everybody else, to produce more and more milk.
I am not certain whether that was good advice at the time. The repercussions are there to be seen and one must question whether the problem that we now face is not partially his fault. I understand that the Government's official solution to the milk problem lies in the belief that we can achieve some equality between production and consumption. As a rural Member, I recognise that there is vast over-production which can on no grounds be justified, and we must do something about that both here and in Europe. I am not denying the fundamental problem.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although there is vast over-production of milk in the Community, there is none in this country and that we do not provide sufficient milk for our own people?

Mr. Penhaligon: I recognise that, but that narrow, partisan way of looking at the issue will not provide the solution. If one thinks back a decade, to the rough balance that existed between production and consumption, and if one considers the shifts that have occurred to cause the present surplus, it is clear that Britain's extra production and reduced consumption has made a contribution. I agree that there are countries in Europe which are more to blame for the surplus, but we cannot solve the problem simply by taking that view. It may be the argument that our farmers want to hear, but to discuss the subject in that way is being too narrow and partisan.
I understand that in the view of the Government—I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave it as the Official Opposition's view too — the problem can be solved in total by reducing the price of milk. One of the great ironies of the incredible milk surplus in Europe is that in those places where milk is produced, its production is not that profitable. It is a great myth that all our farmers have a licence to print money. That may be true of some of the grain producers of East Anglia—land prices suggest that there is more than a figment of truth in that — but it is not true of milk producers.
I warn the Government and the Labour party that marginal decreases in milk prices would have the opposite effect to the one that they desire. Even if the price of milk were marginally reduced, the farmers in my constituency would undoubtedly milk more and more cows. Sadly, the production of milk has nothing to do with how fast the grass grows in the fields. It has far more to do with a farmer's willingness to buy food concentrates for his cattle. A solution in terms of marginal reductions in milk prices would not be even a half-credible solution, and I find it worrying that the Government should even be applying their mind to it. What I fear is not that they are looking for marginal reductions in the price of milk but that they are looking for substantial cuts in milk prices.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. Will he accept that this country has no surplus of milk, but that the surplus is produced elsewhere?

Mr. Penhaligon: I thought I had flogged that point to death earlier in my speech, though I am willing to go over it again if need be. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman follows EEC matters closely, but if he considers the situation today in relation to what it was 10 years ago, he cannot reach a conclusion other than that we have contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves in Europe, even if his basic point is right.
It is important for Britain's rural areas, especially those dependent on milk, to realise that the sort of price reduction required to reduce the surplus is about 20 per cent. When I ask experts how they arrive at that figure, they do not give a definitive reply. However, for the sake of the debate, let us take it as factual that a 20 per cent. reduction would reduce production in this country and throughout Europe. I believe that to be true.
I also believe that there will be no solution of the problem without somebody's blood being spilt on the


street; a problem of this magnitude cannot be solved without many people being extremely disappointed, feeling that they have been misled and believing that the investments that they were asked to make represented a misguidance by those in power. I warn the Government that a 20 per cent. reduction in the price of milk to solve the problem would not result in just a little blood being spilt on the street. It would mean the bankruptcy of the entire rural fabric of at least my part of the country, which depends on milk. There can be no doubt about that. Cereals cannot be grown easily in my area. It keeps raining and cereal crops do not like rain. When the wind blows, as it often does, they are flattened.

Mr. Marlow: If the price of milk comes down one can still make a profit, if the price of cereals comes down also.

Mr. Penhaligon: That may be true, but one suspects that if that equilibrium were maintained at its present level, we should be no nearer solving the problem. I am admitting as a rural Member—it is not easy to say this, representing a rural seat — that the farmers of my constituency must look forward to the fact that in five years from now the will be producing no more, possibly less, milk than they are now. As an Opposition Member I can say that there are not many votes in that, but it is a realistic view.
The House has no interest in seeking the collapse of the rural economy. There are two possible solutions. Either we shift the advantages of milk production to those areas most suited to it by taxing the concentrated foodstuffs or fertilisers used on the land — that would not be my solution, but it is a possibility worth considering—or we face up to the immense difficulties that indelibly exist in quotas.
The EEC not only flirts with quotas, but advocates the system and bases it on 1981. There are good reasons for suggesting a year base other than 1981 because of the peculiar weather conditions that year. However, that is a minor point compared with the fundamental point that the Government would serve British and European agriculture better if they stopped looking for a massive reduction in the price of milk and investigated how to operate the quota system. The latter solution would not be overwhelmingly popular, but it would be a better solution to the problem facing the Government.
The House must not forget that fundamental to the problem is the rural economy of our nation. Agriculture is not merely a useful industry in areas such as my constituency; without it there is no future for large swathes of Britain. Hon. Members cannot believe that we have an interest in the short, medium or long term in laying our agricultural areas to waste, but the Government are not far short of committing themselves to pursuing a policy which will, in the final analysis, result in that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about that later.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, and I have followed with fascination his exchanges with other hon. Members. His remarks demonstrate the imperfections of trying to provide stable and adequate supplies to the consumer and at the same time a secure income to farmers in rural areas, because of the difficulties with the price mechanism. To escape from the traps which he pointed out, we must return to

something approximating to the income support measures and the deficiency payments that we enjoyed before the CAP.

Mr. Penhaligon: That alternative is worth investigating. I have never been convinced that the deficiency payment system works anything like as well in a surplus agriculture situation as it does in a deficit agriculture situation. Under a deficiency payments scheme, world market forces set the price, and the Government set a minimum level for their farmers which the Government pay them to reach.
Given the present position, if we allowed milk to find its real commercial price within Europe under the auctioneer's hammer, farmers would pay milk consumers to take it away. Then the deficiency payments scheme would not result in a marginal contribution towards the costs of producing the foodstuffs, but the Government would pick up the bill for the lot. I do not dismiss the system for all commodities, but it could have only a negative effect for milk.
There has been progress within Europe in the fishing industry. During the past fortnight I have had several conversations with fishermen, and I have reached the conclusion that British fishermen believe that fish are in the sea by ministerial decree. It has nothing to do with a natural biological cycle; if there are not fish enough to catch, in the final analysis it is the fault of Ministers.
I make no apology for raising a local point about mackerel. The Government and the EEC, belatedly — although it is welcomed—introduced in my area what is known as a mackerel box. The idea is that within the box fishing for mackerel is banned, with the exception of hand liners and — unfortunately we missed it at the time — bottom trawlers. There is no reason why bottom trawlers should not have such an exemption, because a genuine bottom trawler does not catch much mackerel. It is possible to catch a few as the net goes down or comes up, and it is even conceivable that the odd drunk mackerel might forget where he is supposed to swim and be caught. However, if bottom trawling is carried out in the way that every fisherman knows that it is supposed to be, hardly any mackerel would be caught.
There is great anguish in my area because the exemption is clearly being fiddled. A new system of fishing has been developed, which can only be described as bottom trawling at mid water. That is due to the suddenly and never previously experienced difficulties of the Scottish fishing vessels, which do not seem to be able to get their bottom trawls down to the bottom. The boats managed it for 50 or 60 years without difficulty, but coincidental with the exemption it appears that bottom trawls will not reach the bottom.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a pronounced distinction between bottom trawling gear — commercial fishing gear — and pelagic gear. The Scottish fishermen are not quite the rogues that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Does he agree that the box significantly harms the interests of Scottish purse seine fishing vessels?

Mr. Penhaligon: I do not accept that. I said earlier jocularly—perhaps I should have been more harsh—that people talk as though mackerel are in the sea by ministerial decree. The reason why mackerel stocks are in such a ludicrous state is that over the years every conservation


that has been needed has been applied to mackerel two or three years too late. The south-west fleet unwillingly took on the entire capacity of the Scottish fleet when it could no longer catch herring. I am pleased that there has been a great recovery in herring stocks, but there is no doubt that the general conspiracy between the Government and fishermen everywhere except in Cornwall has resulted in a massive reduction in mackerel stocks.
A mackerel is supposed to be a foot long, but the only one of that length remaining in Cornwall is stuffed and in a museum. Mackerel is now one of the great delicacies served in the House — I pay tribute to the Scots for developing new methods of eating it—but the specimens presented to me in the House must have been on a diet. I understand why fishermen do it. They have invested money in their boats, and they have employees to pay. It is not an easy problem, but there is no doubt that the mackerel box introduced by the Government and the EC, and supported by fishermen of nearly every class in the United Kingdom and Europe, is being avoided by this method of bottom trawling.
The solution is simple. The Government must impose a 15 per cent. by-catch limit on bottom trawlers in the mackerel box. The few that they catch on the way down or on the way up will be all right, but if a serious attempt is made to fish for mackerel mid-water the 15 per cent. by-catch limit will stop the abuse of the regulations.
The hon. Member for Southend, East referred to the country's great loss in manufacturing. Why the House cannot face up to what has been a major contribution towards that I do not know. For reasons that are perhaps understandable, although I do not support them, the Government have pursued a policy of a high exchange rate. In the last decade two phenomena have helped to shift the British exchange rate relative to European competition. One was the chance of finding oil and the other has been the Government's internal economic policy.
Many people are manufacturing items that anyone else can manufacture. In engineering that covers much that is produced today. The production of cars is not unique to Britain, Europe, America or the far east. A motor car can be produced anywhere with varying degrees of success. Therefore, the exchange rate of our currency against others is of considerable importance — and "considerable" is not a strong enough word in this context. The Government have pursued a high exchange rate policy. The exchange rate is the result of someone else's perception of the value of a currency rather than being an accurate valuation.
Three or four years ago I said in the House that we had to think out the exchange rate consequences of finding oil and of Government policy. Many effects of Government policy can now be seen. We have lost a large percentage of our industrial base and our balance of payments position relative to Europe, because of the effect of Government policy on industrial production, is bad or appalling, whichever description one chooses. So long as the Government pursue their current policy, that tendency will continue, whether or not we remain in the Common Market. The policy has more to do with internal economics than with membership of the Common Market.
I have raised two or three points. Other hon. Members will want to raise more. Mr. Speaker asked us to take only

10 minutes each. My eyesight is not good enough to see the clock, but I think that I may have exceeded the allocated time.

Mr. Robert Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) made clear, there is still a great deal of ground to be covered in the negotiations that are going on in the Community, but the issues have been refined and the choices have been clarified. The outlines of a package deal are emerging to deal with the interlinked problems of net contributions, of CAP costs, and of the provision of new financial resources to financing new policies and to pay for enlargement. I should like to take the opportunity to consider what our policy in Europe should be after we have resolved these difficult issues to which we have devoted so much time and intellectual energy over the past four years.
Our purpose in Europe should be twofold. First, we must seek to increase our influence in and through the Community by making ourselves less of an "outsider" in Community affairs. Secondly, we should bring into sharper focus the European dimension of our efforts to restore the vitality of the British economy.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed that Britain is not standing on her own in the current negotiations. Let us hope that the Government can succeed in ensuring that we continue not to be isolated. For amid the inevitable cross-cutting of interests that have been identified by my hon. Friend, we should not disguise from ourselves the fact that Britain is still in large measure an outsider in the Community. This is one of the reasons why we have had so much difficulty in getting our partners to recognise the seriousness of our problems: if we had been any other country in the Community, I think we would have been able to get it recognised earlier.
Britain still lives with the consequences of our mistaken aloofness from Europe in the 1950s and of the destructiveness of Labour party politics during the 1970s. This attitude has allowed a pattern in European affairs to crystallise so that they are organised around two diplomatic systems, in neither of which we play a part. On the one side there is a fundamental and consistent drive by France and Germany always to find themselves on the same side of every question—although, of course, they will argue from time to time about MCAs and other issues. On the other side there is the tendency of Italy and the Benelux countries to address every question in terms of the opportunities it may afford to advance the process of European integration.
Both these systems in Europe are deeply entrenched, and we are not part of either of them. In particular, the entente between France and Germany has struck deep roots. That is the political fact underlying a Community design which gives economic opportunity to Germany and a kind of political primacy to France.
I do not believe that two systems will dissolve easily, or that they could be easily dissolved; nor do I think it would be easy for us to muscle in on either of them. And I hope I do not need to stress the supreme fatuity of the idea that we could overcome the consequences of these international alignments simply by ignoring them, perhaps by leaving the Community. Our best course is to try to reduce and remove the rigidities in the existing patterns and to diminish the force of the myths that have placed us in our outsider position. If and when we succeed in the


negotiations on the budget and the common agricultural policy, this will greatly help. In a sense it could be said that we will have completed the accession negotiations 10 years after joining.
In thinking about what we should be doing to get more flexibility into our position, I suggest three points to the House. First, we need to end our rhetorical guerilla war against the common agricultural policy. I shall not develop the arguments put so excellently by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I will only say that it is time we began to bring our words on the common agricultural policy into line with our deeds, which include a massive expansion of British agriculture under Governments of both parties since we joined the European Community. On this point about the gap between words and deeds, I noticed that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in spite of his rant about the common agricultural policy, when asked specifically about his policy on price cuts, immediately fell back into the language of "over a period of years".
The second thing we need to do to get away from our outsider position is to take more seriously the preoccupations of our partners with institutional questions. These are not questions of gadgetry. They go to the heart of the ambitions that they or we have or might have for Europe. What sort of machinery do we need to further the ambitions we have for Europe? I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who made a considered speech, to address himself to these questions.
Thirdly, we must reflect much more deeply on how a more coherent and concerted European economic policy could contribute to the restoration of vitality and growth in the European and British economy. We have to begin to look ahead beyond the peak of North sea oil production, which most experts believe will come in the mid-1980s. After that the oil supply will go more or less rapidly downhill. We must ask what lies on the other side of the hill.
We face a serious danger that is reflected in the balance of trade figures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred. Britain's world trade figures in 1982 showed an oil surplus of £3·7 billion and surplus on invisibles of £3·8 billion. But agriculture showed a deficit of £1·3 billion and there was a deficit of £3·6 billion on manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. Moreover, in the first three quarters of 1983, the deficit in manufactured trade rose to £7·7 billion. This is very serious. How will we be earning our living when the net surplus on oil begins to fade? The remedies in terms of promoting competitiveness lie, of course, mainly in our own hands—and we should be greatly strengthened by a more constructive attitude from the Labour party. But we cannot afford to turn our backs on the possible contribution which a more dynamic European policy could make.
The Government rightly lay great stress on deepening the Common Market so that industrial rationalisation can be carried forward on a European scale. That is obviously a major factor. It is right also that the Government should be taking a close interest in co-operation in promoting new technologies. Let us hope for an early and positive decision on ESPRIT and the airbus. But is this enough? I believe that the Government underestimate the consequences of exchange rate instability for investment

and growth. It is the failure of investment caused, among other things, by that instability that underlies the poor strade figures that we have been discussing.
I shall give a concrete example from my constituency. The Rutherford Appleton laboratory is the organisation through which a large part of our research in high energy physics is conducted. We currently invest £36 million a year in high energy research through CERN in Geneva. Every year there have been problems because costs have been increased by exchange rate changes. Last year it was necessary to find from the science vote an extra £7 million to deal with the consequences of exchange rate fluctuations for CERN. This has produced real concern about the future of our investment in that form of research.
Over the years I have had many arguments with Ministers and officials about these issues. I have always been told that exchange rates do not really matter because any company that wants to invest abroad needs only to buy foreign exchange on the forward markets. I do not believe that that is so. And judging by the way in which the Government have handled the CERN foreign exchange rate costs, I do not believe that the Government find it a practical proposition either.
In thinking about Britain's industrial future as the oil runs out, we need to consider much more deeply than we yet show signs of doing such issues as the scope for concerted demand management in Europe, the scope for promoting exchange rate stability, and the possibilities of developing in the Community a more coherent and effective European external economic and monetary policy in our relations with the United States and Japan.
In the negotiations that lie immediately ahead, Britain enjoys a relatively strong position. It is stronger than some of the Government's critics on both sides of the House seem prepared to admit. However, over the middle to longer term, I believe that our position is by no means so strong. Indeed, it is weaker than some of those very same critics seem to think. We have a giant task ahead of us to ensure that Britain attains a full measure of the influence in and through Europe that could be available to us, and to give ourselves the economic base to sustain that influence. Ten years have passed, and it is surely time to begin.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) talked about Britain being isolated and an outsider. I shall demonstrate later why the policy and practices of the Conservative party in this Parliament and the Conservative group in the European Parliament have led to that situation.
The Opposition's amendment draws attention to
the same negative and destructive policies in industry and the economy which have caused so much damage in the United Kingdom".
Having been a Member of the European Parliament and a member of the social affairs committee, it will not surprise the House to hear that my remarks will be directed primarily to social affairs. A meeting took place on 22–23 February when the
Secretary of State for Employment took the opportunity at the meeting of presenting a discussion paper outlining United Kingdom's thoughts on how EC Employment Ministers could most usefully direct their efforts, notably in the fight against unemployment.
I have found no evidence of any beneficial effects of that meeting in the fight against unemployment in my


constituency. I conclude that there is a crisis in Western capitalism and that those who are paying the price are those who are least responsible for it—the workers.
Unemployment has risen continuously throughout the Community and is now at least 12 million. In Britain the official figures are that 3·1 million are unemployed, but the job gap is possibly greater than 5 million. Unemployment is turning the area that I represent into a disaster area. In my constituency unemployment is more than 30 per cent. I do not know whether Conservative Members who represent constituencies with much lower levels of unemployment realise what such a high rate of unemployment really means. In my constituency it means that 7,500 are out of work. There are famous phrases about travelling to work, but my constituency is in a borough where the official male unemployment figure is over 26 per cent. It is in a region where unemployment is more than 20 per cent.
There are those who say that there is hope for the future, but an independent study by the projection department of Warwick university shows that unemployment in my area will increase slightly up to 1990. Those who are suffering the most—this shows how wicked and evil Conservative Members are—are the youngsters. Nearly half of those unemployed are below 20 years of age. In the north, 30 per cent. of those under 18 years of age are unemployed while 35 per cent. of the 18 to 19-year-olds are unemployed.
It is clear that the British Government have contributed nothing within the EC to alleviate unemployment. Social fund allocations as a percentage of the EC budget are the equivalent, when dealing with unemployment, of dealing with a man who has been run over by a steamroller by running up to him and offering him a Band-Aid. In other words, the amount of money available would not touch current unemployment, even if all of it were directed to my region.
It is probably because of the Conservative group's isolation in the European Parliament that we have been unable to make the necessary changes. The isolation of the British Government has had a similar consequence. The house will be aware that the Vredeling proposal was based on multi national companies informing their workers of the changes that they wished to make in industry and consulting them accordingly. Unfortunately, Conservatives have contempt for workers. The Member of the European Parliament who produced the report was a member of the Conservative party. In terms of Left and Right, he is one of the most moderate of the Right-wingers in the European Parliament. I suppose he is the equivalent of the TUC general secretary in Britain. I refer to Oscar Vetter. He said:
We cannot constantly refer to a dialogue while refusing workers in undertakings the simplest rights or granting them no more than ineffectual, sham rights. During the public debate it has been said that information entrusted to workers might not be treated confidentially. I ask myself what image do those who harbour this politely worded suspicion actually have of the worker?
When I went to the House of Lords to give evidence on the Vredeling proposals, I rapidly came to the conclusion that the people there who were members of the Conservative party had no idea about trade unionists or trade unions. Since I have been a Member of this House, and listened to some of the speeches from the Conservative

Benches, particularly on the subject of trade union democracy, I have concluded that Conservative Members here know no more about it than those in the shop round the corner.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the author of the amendments that gutted the Vredeling proposals was a member of the Conservative party and a QC? He was in the pay of a multinational company — the Mars Corporation. There is plenty of documented evidence, and the Bar Council is now considering it. Unfortunately, the code of conduct for QCs covers only the Palace of Westminster, not the European Parliament. I just wondered whether my hon. Friend realised that the main instigator of the gutting of the Vredeling proposals was a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, who is also a QC and on the payroll of a multinational company.

Mr. Boyes: Yes. The Mars Corporation retained a top Washington law firm, Patton Boggs and Blow, to advise on the amendments for the Vredeling directive debates, and they were discussed with Amédée Turner, the Conservative Member for Suffolk, although, in fairness, he has denied up to now that he is on Mars' payroll.
We saw multinationals at their worst in the European Parliament. Hardly a week went by when I did not receive a glossy brochure from a multinational company asking, demanding, or attempting to twist our arms to vote against the proposal. Ivor Richard, the Commissioner, told us that his carpet was worn thin by multinationals coming to see him almost daily to get him to oppose the Vredeling proposal. A £70,000 video was prepared and hawked about the United States to show the worst aspects, and the Community employers' organisation, UNICE, continued to resist it.
I could go on in detail about Conservative Members in Europe who resisted it. However, in this Chamber I am more worried about the people here. What is the United Kingdom Government's position on Vredeling? It will not surprise hon. Members to know, from John Wyles in the Financial Times in 1982, that
Mr. Norman Tebbit, Britain's Employment Secretary, stood alone among Community Ministers yesterday in rejecting the idea of EEC-wide legislation to guarantee employees' rights to information and consultation.
In a report in 1983, again in the Financial Times, John Wyles said:
The extent of the United Kingdom Government's disillusionment with the European Commission's proposals on workers' rights — the Vredeling and the Fifth Directive — is shown clearly in its consultative paper".
He said:
the paper is less a description of the proposals … a sustained, closely argued polemic against their provisions.
The Economist—I deliberately chose papers that can be relied on to support the Conservative party — said that the British are "frankly hostile". So we are isolated in our activities over there, and it is no wonder that we cannot get the changes that we want.
The hon. Member for Wantage used the word "isolated". Even in the European Parliament the Conservatives could get no other nation or political group to sit with them. They are the only single party group. They may tell me about a couple of Danes, although I gather that one of them attacked Britain in a fishing boat. In fact, the Conservatives are isolated, and within the Parliament's framework they are looked upon by all other


political groups as nationalist and reactionary. That is why, as long as the Conservative party is in power, we shall never get the deal that we want for our workers. As long as the Conservatives are in power, unemployment will continue to rise, particularly in the deprived regions.

Mr. Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House, however, that Conservative Members of the European Parliament were part of a healthy majority in voting to gut the Vredeling directive?

Mr. Boyes: One cannot answer the point about isolation, why Conservatives sit alone and why no one speaks to them, by asking a trivial question.
I want the Vredeling proposal, with the support of the British Government, to strengthen the rights of workers to consultation, to know what is happening to them and to know when new technologies have been introduced in companies. I do not pretend that that will save jobs, but it would at least prove me wrong when I say that Conservative Members have absolute contempt for workers.

Mr. David Crouch: I am learning to listen to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), because he is no fool. However, I have a feeling that he may be in danger of spoiling that reputation. To say that we on the Government Benches are not concerned with better communication in industry and better industrial democracy is to deny the truth. We have been concerned to produce real industrial democracy, not a mock industrial democracy. I have worked in industrial relations for many years. When I was in Brussels many years ago, I met the right hon. Member for Blanau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and Len Murray. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What are you doing here?" I replied, "I am coming to study industrial democracy." "Oh," he said, "you will not get much industrial democracy here — industrial bureaucracy if you like." That was the view of the former Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that to heart.

Mr. Boyes: I shall comment on the hon. Gentleman's words, not on the words of someone else in a private conversation. I do not do that sort of thing. However, that is by the by.
Why do the multinationals use the same words as the hon. Gentleman has just used to me? I sat at a table in New York with representatives of some of the top multinationals and they said, "We do it already—the things that you are asking for." I replied, "If you do it, why are you worried about it being obligatory rather than voluntary? What are you really worried about?" What are Conservative Members worried about?
As an illustration, I should like to recount what happened to a company in which some of my constituents work—Caterpillar. No one wrote me stronger letters against the Vredeling proposal than that company. Yet that company—I hope that every Conservative Member will condemn what that company did — made its closure announcement in Scotland, throwing more than 1,000 men out of work in the area of highest unemployment in Britain where the chances of alternative jobs are nil.
The news was picked up by the Scottish press, and the people working in Caterpillar read it on their way to work. They bought the Newcastle Journal on their way to work, and read the headline that the Caterpillar company was to

close. Some apprentices were interviewed on television. They started work that morning and were told by lunchtime that they were out of work. That is not hypothetical; that is what happened. When that happens statutory obligations should be put on multinationals to inform and consult employees about changes in working operations or conditions. That is no more than any right hon. or hon. Member should expect in 1984.

Mr. James Hill: If Shakespeare were alive today he would have to say, "Oh cursed CAP." The debate has drifted away from the subject of the CAP. Earlier speeches concentrated on milk, grain, fisheries, olive oil and the 101 other things that the Select Committee on European Legislation must examine. If only we could return to the day in 1972 when the Government were negotiating the 3,000 directives, if only we could have thrown 2,850 of them out of the window and said, "Yes we shall join the Community but please exclude us from the CAP." The CAP is a disaster. It is the root of all the trouble in Europe today. The fine ideals of Europe are being ground into the soil because of subsidies and the lack of money to make deficiency payments.
The crunch is now upon us—31 March will be the day when we shall have to think almost on the lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and other almost violent anti-marketeers whom the House has known. We shall have to say, "No more." We must insist that there will be no more money until we get a proper reform of the budgetary system. That system is now inadequate. We are faced with another grave problem—Spain and Portugal joining the Community. They are not industrial giants that will pour wealth into the coffers in Brussels. They are both agricultural countries which will be looking forward to great subsidies from the CAP.
It is possible that the £437 million will be grubbed together and paid to Britain — it should be. If that happens perhaps the crisis will strike again a year later because the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers have once again been unable to agree budgetary commitments. Spain and Portgual will then join the Community and there will be another crisis. When I was in the European Parliament, it was said that the Community moved forward in a crisis, that the Community welcomed a crisis because it gave it direction and forced it to make decisions. It now seems to have gone into a slumberland.
Differences of style at Heads of State meetings in the past 10 years have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's style is correct. We have had enough. We must have a sensible contribution to the budget.
The House agreed to a Court of Auditors to keep a check on the waste and inefficiencies that were knee deep in the Community. They still are. We have discussed the 1981 Court of Auditors document. I sometimes wonder whether the Commission follows up its findings. Do our colleagues in the European Parliament initiate discussions about the utter waste and inefficiency which the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg has unearthed? That would be an interesting debate.
I have been a European from day one, but I am getting pretty sour about it. I was chairman of transport and regional planning in Brussels when that excellent Commissioner, George Thomson as he then was, was responsible for regional development.

Mr. Bill Walker: He is a good Scot.

Mr. Hill: Indeed.
We thought that we would introduce paradise to the periphery of the Community. That has not happened. There is not enough money to go into regional planning or the social fund because it is being gobbled up by the farmers of Europe. When we got a good percentage— 28 per cent. — of the regional fund allocated to the United Kingdom, I thought that that was the beginning and the making of Europe. That was not so. Transport infrastructure has not benefited. Indeed, there has been hardly any progress on transport in the Community.
It is necessary only to look through the list in the White Paper to see that our Ministers seem to be in constant motion between London and Brussels. They are being faced with some difficult decisions. The Community wants majority voting on most things. That will be the last possible veto against the excesses that the CAP produces.
Unless the rest of the Community demonstrates a reasonable approach on 31 March, I for one will be extremely dissatisfied. If that is their idea of keeping faith, they can keep it.

Mr. Ron Leighton: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I was with him when we visited the Court of Auditors.
The House is supposed to be debating the White Paper, so it might be useful if I refer to it and then make one comment on the motor industry. The document is not inspiring. Indeed, we have had no inspiring documents for a long time. Europeans, such as the hon. Member for Test — we are all European in that we were born in a European country—have long since given up any hope of reading good news from the EC in such documents. That is why, I suspect, attendance at these debates is not high.
The White Paper is an account of what we might call the latest state of play in the haggling and wrangling between member states. It is unfortunate that we are looking back at the first six months of last year and considering things only in retrospect. It is an exercise in futility. There have been many false dawns and many people, such as the hon. Member for Test, have become disillusioned.
The second paragraph of the document states:
The European Council in Stuttgart on 17–19 June launched a major negotiation on the reform of the Community's financial system.
The agenda is then referred to, and the paragraph continues:
The negotiation will be conducted at special meetings of the Council and the results are to be submitted to the Athens European Council on 6 December.
Although that sounds enthusiastic — we can look back with hindsight—Athens was a predictable fiasco.
The next paragraph states that our net refunds are "two-thirds of our net contribution."
I remember the Prime Minister, when she went to Dublin, saying that she was not willing to be fobbed off with half a loaf, but that is what she has.
Why should Britain pay anything into the budget? If it is meant to be a means of redistribution and if we are one of the poorer nations, surely, in all justice, we should be a net beneficiary. We are a member of a strange club of

nine or 10 members in which only two make any contributions. We are one of those two. That is a monstrous arrangement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Test that enough is enough. Unless a sensible arrangement can be made within the next two or three weeks, we should withhold our excessive contributions.
The next paragraph deals with the "social and employment sphere". The social fund is entirely peripheral. Financially, it consists of peanuts, and we need not waste time on that. Mass unemployment exists throughout the Common Market. The paragraph also refers to the "regional field". If any genuine regional policy operated, the United Kingdom should be a net beneficiary, but the European Community does not have a real regional policy. The rich countries are in no way helping the poor. The policy is nugatory. We all know that the richer countries and regions in the European Community are getting richer and that the poor are getting poorer.
Paragraph 1.9 states:
the Government welcomed a unilateral decision by Spain to reduce tariffs on … car imports.
I shall say a word about that later.
The Community concluded an agreement with Japan restraining exports to the Community".
In other words, the EC is lauding import controls. I thought that the EC agreed with free trade, but it is patting itself on the back for imposing import controls on Japan. The truth is that the EC is damaging our motor industry, not Japan's. If import controls are to be implemented, they should be against France, Germany and Italy, not Japan.
Page 6 refers to the internal market, and paragraph 1.15 states:
The Government welcomed this initiative towards speeding up the process of making the free movement of goods and services within the Community's very large internal market more complete.
In other words, a European Common Market does not exist. I believe that there are now more customs officers than before the Common Market was formed.
However, some developments have taken place. Page 10 refers to the directives allowing wedding gifts to pass across frontiers without being subject to controls.
Page 9 of the document states:
There were also useful contacts with the United States on the problems in agricultural trade.
We all know that the fact that we have subsidised food exports to the world markets has caused the most acrimonious of relationships with the United States. No wonder the document skates over that subject.
Then the paper turns to fishing. Countries throughout the rest of the world have a 200-mile fishing limit. Such an arrangement would have suited the United Kingdom well. As a result or our being in the European Community, we have an arrangement under which the United Kingdom contributes the largest share of fisheries to the Common Market pond. Our arrangements for quotas allow continental fishermen, who have fished out their own waters, to help themsleves to quotas of our fish.
A brief reference is made to the European monetary system. The figures dealing with the flotation of currencies show they have been used all over the place. Economic convergence has not taken place. The document shows that, with different rates of inflation, there is no chance of fixed parities operating.
Reference is also made to


a substantial discussion on the draft non-life insurance services directive.
There is nothing more, so that proves that nothing has happened. The Minister is smiling happily. Before we joined the EC, we were told that the City of London was extremely efficient and that great gains would be made, but we have not been allowed to compete.
Page 17 of the report, referring to a discussion on financing, says:
The Commission produced proposals on future financing in May. They proposed that the 1 per cent. limit on the VAT … take from member states be increased initially to 1·4 per cent., with provision for raising the new limit subsequently by further tranches of 0·4 per cent., subject to unanimous agreement in the Council and a three-fifths majority of votes cast in the European Parliament, without the need for ratification by national Parliaments.
The suggestion is that we should be taxed, for example, at rates and by amounts that we did not decide, by people whom we did not elect and whom we cannot remove and in ways that we did not choose.
We have given away many of our powers. I note that the Minister is smiling. I hope that I can take the beneficent look on his face as confirmation that we shall never submit ourselves to such an indignity. It is absolutely and entirely unacceptable.
Paragraph 5.14 refers to the
Court of Auditors and Financial Control,
which should interest the hon. Member for Test. He will agree that on our visit we discovered that the report was really a catalogue of frauds and irregularities. There is no proper financial control whatever in the European Community. That is why discussion on the topic consists of only five lines.
Page 18 refers to the German "butterships". It says:
Germany has still to agree to abolish the exemption from VAT and excise duties on goods sold on board the 'butterships' sailing on non-landing cruises from North German ports despite a European Court judgment of July 1981.
We have a wonderful picture of hausfraus shopping on the high seas. That is a Gilbert and Sullivan arrangement that is completely illegal. They pay no excise or other taxes, but the Germans are doing great business with their butterships.
The Commission has put forward two draft directives on wine and beer. One is to allow the free movement across frontiers of six litres, not four litres, of wine. It seems that the wine lakes can be moved from one country to another.
Paragraph 5.20 states:
the commission has alleged that the United Kingdom's duty structure discriminates in favour of home-produced beer and against imported wine.
That is the explanation for successive Finance Bills which have increased the duty on British beer. That is why the price of beer in Britain is being increased.
In a Commission paper on progress towards a common policy for inland transport there is agreement to proceed "step by step". That sounds rather pedestrian and
specific proposals from the Commission are still awaited.
The main damage to Britain is done by the appalling and horrifying deficit on manufactured goods. That is dealt with in annex F to the document, which says that in the first six months there was a deficit of nearly £4 billion. Our deficit in manufactures with the EC is about £10 billion. That probably costs about 1 million jobs for Britain.
When we joined the Common Market, for every eight cars we sent member states, they sent five to us. Lord Stokes, in his full-page advertisements, told us how our

joining would benefit the motor industry. Today, for every car that we send to Common Market countries, they send us 10.
I was recently with the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir Nicholas Bonsor) on a visit to the Ford Motor Company, which is closing its foundry, where thousands of redundancies are to take place. The fear is that Ford in Britain will operate just an assembly plant.
The Financial Times of 18 January contained two articles. The first, about Ireland, stated:
Ford Ireland is to close its car assembly plant in Cork this year with the loss of 800 jobs.
The article continued:
Ford pointed out that tariff protection for car assemblers in Ireland would end in January next year after pressure on the Irish Government by the EEC Commission. To compete in the Irish market against imported cars would have left Ford 'fighting in the free-for-all which is bound to develop with one hand tied behind its back.'
Ford operated happily in the Republic of Ireland with a limited amount of protection. When the tariffs were removed, Ford was no longer competitive. It was willing to keep the factory working when Ireland was outside the Common Market. When Ireland went in, the company was producing 80 Sierras a day and it was happy, but when it could import them more cheaply from the continent it shut the plant in Cork.
In the same issue of the Financial Times a major article refers to the
Ford Motor Company's decision to build a $500 million export-orientated factory in Mexico".
That shows the way in which a national Government, even in a country such as Mexico, can lay down conditions for the multinationals and insist that they play the game by that country.
The article states:
Production of 130,000 cars a year will begin at the end of 1986 … The main factor … behind the Ford venture is that its new plant enables it to comply with the Mexican Government's regulations.
The article explains that in the past the motor industry has
been a heavy drain on Mexico's balance of payments. In 1981 it accounted for 58 per cent. of Mexico's trade deficit.
That is similar to the United Kingdom's position, but the Mexican Government decided to do something about it and passed a decree in Parliament which
stipulates that by 1987 all cars manufactured in Mexico must have at least 60 per cent. local content.
The article continues:
Not only must Ford balance its foreign exchange account, but it also has a $500 million foreign exchange obligation to clear.
The boss of Ford Mexico stated:
failure to clear the obligation would mean the gradual squeezing of Ford out of Mexico, since imports would cease to be authorised.
Rather than put up with that, Ford is building a new plant which will involve Mexican parts and produce a balance of payments surplus for Mexico. Why do we not do that? Spain did it.
A few years ago Spain had no motor industry, but today Spain produces more cars than the United Kingdom. Spain said to the multinationals, "If you want our market, you will manufacture here. It is your choice. You can have the market, but only if you manufacture here or use a percentage of Spanish parts in your cars." The multinationals complied and built factories in Spain. We could do the same.
Our industrial base is disappearing. It is our responsibility. The multinationals have no loyalty or


patriotism. If they can make more profit by producing elsewhere, they will. Our duty is to our own country. We should lay down the conditions. Why do we not do that? The reason is that it would conflict with the treaty of Rome. We should work out policies that are in the British national interest, regardless of the treaty of Rome. The sooner we have a Government who do that, the better.

Mr. Michael Howard: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) criticised the Government's attitude to the Vredeling directive and sought to link that with the attitude of the Caterpillar company to those workers in his constituency whom he said were made redundant without proper consultation. We do not need the directive to deal with that situation, because a remedy is already available in the Employment Protection Act. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, the workers have a remedy and will be advised to make use of that remedy.
I make no apology for seeking to divert the attention of the House from the CAP, own resources and all the excitements to which other hon. Members have referred. I make no apology for raising another matter because it is of fundamental importance in the long run to relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Community.
It is 10 years since Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, described the treaty of Rome and its relationship to English law as being like "an incoming tide." He said:
It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.
In drawing attention to that tide, it is not my intention to invite the House to adopt a Canute-like posture towards it, but I suggest that that tide is capable of causing danger of two kinds. Constitutionally the position is deceptively simple. On matters which touch the Community, Community law is supreme. If an inconsistency arises between the two, identified by the European Court of Justice, for example, Community law must prevail. The first difficulty is that not all Community legislation is superior to United Kingdom law. One would need to be in thrall to a quite exceptional admiration for the Community and its works to need much persuading of that.
The second danger is that, even where the merits of the two are more evenly balanced, the automatic and relentless invasion of what has hitherto been our sovereign preserve gives rise to a great deal of irritation and resentment, even among our fellow citizens who are not hostile to the Community or to United Kingdom membership of it. In many instances, the process brings the Community into disrepute.
That feeling of irritation and resentment is not entirely foreign to hon. Members. It is especially marked when we are presented with documents that we are told, correctly, we cannot amend or reject because they are introduced pursuant to directives of the Community or decisions of the Court of Justice, and that we must accept them without question as part of the price that we pay for our continued membership of the Community.
What makes that difficult to accept is that the tide of which Lord Denning spoke seems to flow in one direction only. Unlike other tides, it never seems to ebb. When the European Court of Justice rules that our domestic law is

inconsistent with some Community regulation or directive, the automatic reaction is to set in trend—sometimes sooner and sometimes later—the necessary procedures to bring domestic law in line with the Community edict.
I contend that there are opportunities for reversing the flow and encouraging the ebb tide. We should be astute to identify, exploit and enhance those opportunities. Of course, I recognise that if the Community edict is clear in its meaning and recent in its origin and has received the approval of the Council of Ministers, the Community edict is unlikely to be denied its supremacy and it would have to be enforced. But where those features are absent, that should not necessarily follow.
The edict may be a consequence of a decision taken only by the Commission; it may never have been before the Council of Ministers. It may be outdated and no longer represent what the Council of Ministers may desire in present circumstances. It may be unclear and there may be a great deal of doubt about whether the interpretation placed upon it by the Court of Justice was that intended by the Council of Ministers. In such cases, our initial response should not be to ask, "How do we change our domestic law to conform with the edict?" but to ask, "Does the Community really wish to insist on the supremacy of its edict in current circumstances?"
I shall cite an example of the sort of problem that could and does arise. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 contains a provision that exempts small businesses—firms with no more than five employees—and domestic households from many of its employment provisions. That provision was not put into the Act by a Conservative Government; it has been there since the Act was introduced by a Labour Government in 1975. The year after the Act was introduced, the Council of Ministers adopted a directive on sex discrimination. We must presume that it did so with the approval of the British Government. If the Government of the time had thought that there was any inconsistency between that directive and the Act that Parliament had passed the previous year, they would have sought either to change the directive or to amend the Act. As they did neither, we are entitled to assume that no inconsistency was thought to exist.
The directive and the Act lived together quite happily for many years—but not, unfortunately, for ever after. In November last year the European Court of Justice considered the relationship between the two and found the statute wanting. That point was raised during the debate on the Sex Equality Bill on 9 December 1983, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) intervened in the observations that I was addressing to the House. I must confess that I did the hon. Lady rather less than full justice in my riposte on that occasion.
The question arises what should now be done about the discrepancy between the directive and the statute. I contend that it does not follow, and should not follow, that the automatic response to the decision of the Court of Justice should be to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to bring it into line with the directive. The automatic response should be to try to amend the directive. Procedures exist to enable such an attempt to be made, and I hope that it will be made.
But we need something more. We need an automatic reference back to the Council of Ministers of any Community measure that is held by the Court of Justice to require a change in the domestic law of member


countries. Of course, if the Council of Ministers affirms the Community edict, as loyal members we must accept that decision. But the Council's view may have changed, or it may never have contemplated that the edict would be interpreted in a particular way. Indeed, it may never have had the opportunity to consider the matter. I suggest that where an apparent inconsistency arises between Community law and domestic law, a change in domestic law should be the last rather than the first resort.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he has woken up 11 years too late? We had debates in the House when the then Solicitor-General, now the Foreign Secretary, argued these very points. Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 makes it abundantly clear that enforceable Community legislation and court findings of the EC supersede any domestic legislation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although worthy, is not practical and, unfortunately, goes against the statutes passed by this House.

Mr. Howard: Many of us learn from experience, and I hope that we have learnt from the experience of the past 10 years. We must put that to good use and seek to change the procedures that have not been working well. Although section 2 of the 1972 Act provides for the direct implementation of some Community measures into our law, it does not apply to all the matters that would be covered by the procedural change that I am advocating. It is never too late to seek to change an institution, and I urge the Government to that end. I urge the Government to seek to establish within the Community the machinery to enable those steps to be taken. If we can restore a two-way flow of tide on European law—

Mr. Budgen: Has my hon. and learned Friend taken account of the important analogy, given by the Minister when he opened the debate, of the federation of the United States? Perhaps what my hon. and learned Friend suggests would be analogous to the attempted secession of the south and might even bring an armed attack by other EC countries on Britain.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's vivid turn of phrase is combined with a dramatic imagination. I shall not follow him along that path. I find his analogy rather less persuasive than most of his observations.
I urge the Government to pursue the establishment of machinery to enable the steps that I have suggested to be taken. If that change were introduced, it would do much to affect the attitude of many of our fellow citizens who, although broadly speaking in favour of the Community and of our membership of it, are irritated and frustrated by the many occasions on which our domestic law is obliged to give priority and precedence to the law of the Community without any good reason.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the analogy that has been drawn between the development of the United States of America and that of the European Community. [Interruption.] The Minister may have made a Freudian slip, but I refer to the attitude now prevailing in Community institutions. "The Relaunch of Europe", the report of the three wise men and the Spinnelli report all refer clearly to federalism.

Conservative Members should question their fellow Conservatives in the European Parliament, and the Minister should tell us clearly tonight whether the Front Bench merely made a slip or whether we are laying the groundwork for full membership of the European monetary system. Have the documents that have been under discussion for some time — "The Relaunch of Europe", the Spinnelli report and the report of the three wise men—been accepted by the Front Bench? If that is so, the position should be made clear to the British public. I do not believe that the Government have a mandate to move in that direction. We have heard this evening that the 1 per cent. ceiling may well be controlled by the decision-making mechanism of the Ministry and of Europe rather than coming to the House. That is a dangerous development.
The Labour party has been accused of being isolationist in relation to the EC. One of the more positive parts of the Stuttgart communique was on the question of central America. Under the Greek Presidency, the Ministers have agreed to try to activate the proposals of the Contadora group. Whenever the topic has been raised, the British Minister has procrastinated and called for further reports on the situation in central America, with the clear aim of not taking action on the Contadora group proposals. Our Ministers have done us a disservice. It may be that we are puppets of the American President. We do not know whether that is so, but it seems very likely.
Reference has been made to the common agricultural policy and to the balance of trade. The steel industry is a specific industry under the direction of the European Coal and Steel Communities treaty. In the United Kingdom, the industry has been devastated. It has lost 25 per cent. of its capacity over the past five or six years. It has lost 100,000 jobs, more than 50 per cent. of all the steel redundancies in the Community. Ministers are meeting in Brussels as I speak. It is thought that the Italians will not come to an agreement on the steel plans and that by 4.30 tomorrow morning the talks could be in disarray. Arrangements in Europe have broken down. The European steel industry is in disarray and the steel industry in the United Kingdom has been devastated.
Furthermore, the Commission adopts a fairly mild-mannered approach towards the United States and, again, the United Kingdom steel industry has borne the brunt. An agreement was made in 1982 to run from November 1982 to December 1985. It referred to 10 major steel products from the EC, amounting to under 6 per cent. of the American market. In that case, an agreement satisfactory to the Americans could not be reached until we agreed to negotiate on pipes and tubes as well. That agreement is now running, but in 1983 the Americans came back for a second bite at our steel industry and, in particular, the special steels industry. They brought in the argument on subsidies, under section 201 of the United States Trade Act 1974. The argument is that we are damaging their industries. The contents of section 201 of that Act are different from the contents of section 301, which was used in 1982 on the question of carbon steel. Section 201 refers to
with respect to serious injury, the significant idling of productive facilities in the industry, the inability of a significant number of firms to operate at a reasonable level of profit, and significant unemployment or underemployment within the industry.


The Commission has capitulated. Discussions are still going on under the GATT arrangements but an extension of 40 days has been granted and apparently we shall not be taking on the United States on the special steels sector. Indeed, there may be a capitulation on global trade figures. That would be highly detrimental to the special steels industry, which is an important part of the steel industry and supplies our high technology industries. The Ministers should put pressure on the Commission to prevent such a capitulation. This week it was reported in the International Herald Tribune that the
Bethlehem Steel Corp. and the United Steelworkers union file a petition Tuesday that asks the government to impose a significant reduction in steel imports, through tariffs, quotas or a mixture of both.
That will affect the 1982 agreement. A complaint was filed under section 201 asking that the penetration of the United States steel market, which stands at about 22·3 per cent., should be brought down to about 15 per cent. If that petition is accepted, if the Commission acts in the way in which it has acted on two previous occasions, and if the United Kingdom Minister who represents us in Europe accepts a deal which resembles the deal accepted in the past, we can say goodbye to the British steel industry. Conservative Members have told us that we have been asked to close down another of the British Steel Corporation's strip mills.
We have suffered a disproportionate amount of cuts both in terms of capacity and numbers employed, and if we continue to accept them, they will lead to the collapse of the British steel industry, whether it is developed under Phoenix 1, 2 or 3. Those cuts are detrimental to the industry. If this further development in the relationship between the EEC and the United States of America continues in the same way, it will have a serious effect on the British steel industry.

Mr. William Powell: It is worth bearing in mind the context in which the events described in the White Paper came about.
By January 1983 we had just seen the collapse of Herr Schmidt's Government in West Germany. The new West German Government faced an election in March. Thus it was not surprising that that Government were hardly in a position to make significant political decisions about the future of the Common Market. At the same time, the French Government had to come to terms with the fact that their attempts to go it alone had failed. They had to reverse their national economic policies. Meanwhile, in Britain, the first six months of last year were almost entirely taken up with the gathering election momentum, which in itself led to the election in June. In Italy, there was yet another election shortly after the British general election, and before then the Italian Government had been no more than a weak caretaker Government. Against that political background, it is not surprising that the events described in the White Paper should be an immense disappointment.
We must also bear in mind the economic backcloth. However, we need to examine it over a slightly longer period. Between the foundation of the Common Market and the first oil crisis—a period of about 14 years—growth throughout the Community averaged about 4·6 per cent. per annum. The effect of the first oil crisis and the

measures that were taken thereafter was to slow down growth throughout the Community to less than half of that. That meant that the slowdown in growth that occurred in the Community was greater than that in the countries of our principal trading rivals, the United States of America and Japan. The consequences of that slowdown in growth have been absolutely devastating for the economies of western Europe.
The reduced growth has brought about an increase in external debt and a reduction in profits. With that reduction in profits, there has been a decline in net investment. As a result of that decline in net investment, our competitiveness has suffered badly compared with Japan and the United States. One consequence of that has been the much higher rate of inflation experienced in the Community compared with the United States of America and Japan.
An examination of the net profits on sales of the 100 largest companies based in western Europe shows that between 1973 and 1981 they averaged 1·4 per cent., about half that achieved by Japanese companies. In the United States, the figure rises by three-and-a-half times. Of course, there has consequently been a catastrophic decline in manufacturing investment. There has also been a decline in productivity as all western European countries have maintained incomes at the expense of investment.
There has been a capital outflow of funds from western Europe to the United States, as people within the Community have found more profitable investments there. As a result, over that period the countries within the Community have lost 3 million jobs. There are 3 million fewer people in employment in the Community — not just in Great Britain, but throughout the Community—than in 1973. However, in the United States of America, there are 15 million more people in employment.
We can only judge the policies that must be pursued in the EC against the background of the change in employment patterns. I wish the Government well in their attempts to come to terms with the two major problems that dominated 1983 and which still persist. I refer to the problems of dealing with the CAP and with our contribution to the Community budget. Much has been said about those problems tonight and I wish only to observe that they are symptomatic of the fundamental difficulties that the EC now faces. Those fundamental difficulties are the economic protectionism that is now growing in the Community and the political paralysis.
I shall briefly examine each difficulty in turn. The Common Market speaks the language of free trade, but it is just as protected in its institutions as the institutions of the ancien regime of 18th century France or of the Zollverein of Germany in the 19th century. The simple fact is that we constantly try to protect ourselves from the decline in jobs, and each time we do so we beggar ourselves. The way out of the job crisis in western Europe lies not in protectionism but in stripping away the barriers to free trade. That is what we must do.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to the scandal of the customs posts throughout Europe. It would cost nothing to remove all that bureaucracy and red tape. If we did that, there would be a marked effect in improving trade between member countries. People are perfectly entitled to refer to the decline in our manufacturing position, but they should remember that what also matters is our volume of trade. The volume of trade that we have had with the Community since our


membership has grown greatly, and must continue to do so. Economic protectionism is to be found throughout the Community, and nowhere more so — as has been stressed—than in the CAP. The system of MCAs that member states have erected to protect their own agriculture has become one of the greatest scandals of Europe.
We shall make no significant progress in dealing with the growing joblessness in Europe unless we strip away that economic protectionism. The solution does not lie in any country trying to go it alone. That has been tried in Britain and in France. No country in Europe is strong enough to go its own way—not even West Germany. However, if we try to grow together and to achieve a convergence of our policies, there is evidence to suppose that we can regenerate the level of growth that was characteristic of the early years of the Community, and which has been so persistent in its absence during the past eight to 10 years.
Above all, we must deal with growing protectionism in the public sector. It is government that is the principal evil when it comes to the problem of analysing where protectionism exists. We all know that there will be no European aircraft industry unless we have one European aircraft industry that is able to sell to member countries, and, on the basis of a strong home market, export to the rest of the world. There is not a single company based in Texas that regards itself as Texan first and American second. There is not a single company in California that regards itself as Californian first and American second. They work in a free market, whereas we simply talk the language of the free market while erecting the very barriers that beggar us. We need an end to the political paralysis that is preventing us from stripping away those barriers. No hon. Member can feel that there is anything other than complete paralysis in western Europe.
This year I hope that, taking advantage of the political stability resulting from the West German and British elections, a change in direction can be negotiated so that the customs scandals are dealt with, the public procurement policies are eliminated and action begins to be taken on the report that was prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) as long ago as 1977 on a common procurement policy in defence industries. All those actions are necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is fond of reminding us that he became a Member of Parliament in 1950 on Mr. Churchill's slogan about setting the people free. No policy is more necessary now than an attempt to set the people free in Europe by burning all restrictions and protections. That is the only way in which we shall prevent joblessness. In fact, 1983 was the 11th successive year in which joblessness had increased in Europe, and unless we take action 1984 will be the 12th successive year, and the trend will continue.
Respectable institutions reckon that, instead of the present 12 million jobless in the Community, by the end of the decade there might be 20 million. That is not a fact that any hon. Member wishes to contemplate. There is only one way out: a growing convergence of our economic policies and a common desire to sew those policies together and to strip away all the barriers to industry, investment and achievement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, the House will wish to know

that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.10 pm. A number of hon. Members still wish to speak. Short speeches will be of great help to everyone.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall take your advice on board, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC and the fact that they would not be given a "blank card" on accession, which I believe was the expression he used.
The negotiations on Gibraltar will change somewhat with Spain's membership of the European Community, and therefore Spain's fishing fleet concerns me. I would say to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that I know what a mackerel looks like. As someone who made his first voyage to Bear Island and Spitzbergen at the tender age of 12, I can even spot the difference between a cod and a haddock. However, the hon. Gentleman is not here to hear what I have to say about that subject.
I am worried about the EEC's approach to fishing, but I am especially concerned about the social affairs section of the White Paper. I represent a constituency that has massive unemployment and may have even higher unemployment if—perish the thought—Scott Lithgow closes.
About two thirds of the EEC's budget is distributed to the CAP, about 5·4 per cent. goes on regional aid and about 6 per cent. on social spending.
Unemployment in my constituency is high, especially among young people. In Port Glasgow, youth unemployment is as high as 80 per cent. About 3,000 school children in my constituency receive free school meals. What future do they have? Will they move from receiving free school meals to the dole queues? It is not just those youngsters, but often their fathers and mothers, who are unemployed.
Those who suffer other deprivations are highlighted in a book a chapter of which was written by Ronald Young, a Strathclyde councillor. Writing about unemployment in my constituency, he said:
On a clear day the view would have the estate agents sharpening their epithets for a killing. The Clyde Estuary at your feet—and the sweep of the Argyll peaks beyond putting Ben Lomond to shame. This, however, is Strone-Maukinhill — a council house scheme of 10,000 people, 40 per cent. of whose male population is unemployed. There is no killing for estate agents because about two-thirds of the households are … on rent rebate and the few who could afford a mortgage don't fancy the houses or the area.
Only about half a dozen houses have been sold in that area, one reason being the dreadful dampness that affects thousands of houses in my constituency. Recently, the Secretary of State for Scotland received a letter signed by 45 doctors expressing their fears about growing unemployment and the medical problems generated by it.
Given the dependence of the Clyde, especially the lower Clyde, on shipbuilding and marine engineering, the allied industries should be given equal status with coal and steel within the European Community in terms of accepting the dreadful social consequences in those industries and providing social funds for the people who are so badly stricken. That does not mean that I accept the inevitability of the closure of Scott Lithgow. I have made my views well known to the House on the way forward for Scott Lithgow and on the Britoil contract. Shipbuilding and marine engineering should be given preferential


treatment in areas, such as Strathclyde, which suffer from high unemployment and multiple deprivation. Therefore, funds should be directed to the Clyde for community enterprises and to provide other forms of new employment. That is my plea to the Government.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The debate has rightly ranged wider than the problems of the budget and agricultural expenditure, notably in the fascinating speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) which was marred only by his further maligning the much-maligned King Canute who, in fact, shared Lord Denning's analysis and not my hon. Friend's.
The aspect of the White Paper to which I shall draw attention may at first seem minor but it is related to the more general problems of the Community in that it reveals the Community's structural bias towards the illiberal member states and the producer lobbies and against the more liberal member states and the consumer. Paragraph 3.12 of the White Paper notes a most significant development not just in external trade, which would be significant enough, but in the use of Community mechanisms and influence to escape the letter and spirit of GATT.
The restraints referred to in that paragraph, which were agreed by the Community with Japan for the first time in February last year and have now been followed by further restraint agreements with other newly industrialising countries, cover not just infant industries, for which the protection argument has always been admitted, but an increasingly wide range of ordinary manufactured goods. The so-called voluntary export restraints are not voluntary at all. They are forced on the offending third country by the Community in our name. They are wholly illegal under GATT and are a clear example of growing but covert protectionism.
The agreement with Japan about video cassette recorders in February 1983, which is noted in the White Paper, has been extended for 1984 to no fewer than 10 so-called "sensitive" sectors. That agreement allows European manufacturers to set higher prices than they normally could because it guarantees them sales. The consumer thus loses in two ways. He loses if he buys the European product at the higher price and he loses if he buys the Japanese import because of the secret Japanese floor price fixed by the Commission and Japan.
There is a constitutional point here. Just as it is wrong for the United Kingdom Government to shelter behind Community machinery in negotiating agreements that may contradict the rules of GATT, so it is wrong for Ministers to impose and enforce what are in effect export cartels against their own citizens. I have always supported the Community because I believe that a strong and free common market throughout the Community would not only benefit our industry but would be a force for good in world trade. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to use all their influence to ensure that GATT is upheld not just in letter but in spirit and that no more voluntary agreements will be "endorsed", as the White Paper puts it, by the Foreign Affairs Council.
Finally, I ask the Minister not to allow Foreign Ministers or the Trade Ministers to pander to identifiable

but minuscule job protection, the cost of which is inevitably borne by millions of consumers who are far less politically organised. If he can help the Community to resist such tempations he will ensure its transition from being a convenience for Governments to being a genuine benefit for individuals.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) for his brevity, which has allowed me to participate in the debate. If others had taken the same attitude, other Conservative Members who wished to participate might have been able to do so. I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's example.

Dr. Godman: What about mine?

Mr. Walker: I also appreciate the brevity of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
The debate relates to the period from January to June 1983, but everyone is aware that as the EEC comes closer to the day when it will run out of cash much of what took place in that period and much of what has been said since then seems less and less possible or relevant. We are rapidly leaving the age of idealism and entering the age of realism. We now have to find the answers.
Much has been said today about the need for reform of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of the need for proper financial control, and I cannot disagree. There is a desperate need for proper control of all Government and European expenditure. At the same time, I remind the House that there is nothing unusual or wrong about using public money to support and protect sectors or areas for what we describe as social reasons or for strategic and defence reasons. It is in the latter two categories that I see the support expenditure on agriculture in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is aware, I am desperately trying to help in the case of Scott Lithgow, as I have done in areas like Prestwick. If the hon. Gentleman were a little more charitable, he would realise that some of us care as deeply about jobs in Scotland as he does.
I believe that the lessons of the last two world wars, when we were desperately short of food, should never be forgotten. That is why I have never found it difficult to support the use of public money to maintain sheep and cattle on the hills of Scotland. What I have never accepted is the view of some of my colleagues that decisions affecting the hill farmers of Scotland were best made in Europe. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Scotland's hill farmers are faced with uncertainty, due to the financial and cash flow problems of Europe.
The raspberry farmers of Tayside are finding to their cost that raspberry pulp from eastern Europe is being dumped in this country via Holland. Indeed, evidence has been produced by the Scottish NFU which clearly demonstrates that, during the period under discussion, more raspberry pulp has come into the United Kingdom from Holland than the entire production from that member state. This is not satisfactory, and cannot be in the interests of Europe or Britain.
Against this background, I view the situation in Europe today with considerable apprehension. I also watch developments in France, in particular the action of French farmers, as warning signs — the combination of the


French economic failure and the failure of the CAP to resolve the problems facing French agriculture, particularly French livestock producers, and the pig producers are the ones most badly affected—that we should not ignore. Indeed, I would go further and say we ignore them at our peril.
Coupled with that is the entry of Spain into the Community, and the difficulties that may arise because of the potential in that country for agricultural expansion—expansion on a scale we cannot comprehend because of the land mass, the weather, irrigation that could be provided from Euro funds and a massive Euro market. That is why I believe that we must take this unique opportunity today offered by the Community running out of funds to bring about fundamental reforms in the EEC.
We were not in at the beginning. Consequently, we were required to accept substantially the conditions on offer when we joined 10 years ago. Sadly, however, if experience is a guide, I believe we will not grasp the opportunity, and the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Assembly will conspire to maintain the status quo. They will fudge issues such as net contributions, and we shall end up with the CAP substantially unchanged. An increase in own resources is more likely, and this will be presented to us in an effort to meet the other EEC programmes. These programmes will involve the collection of taxes in the United Kingdom and other member states, and the moving of these funds through the European institutions and organisations, which can only mean substantial reduction in the worth of these taxes when spent on nation state programmes. Whether this will be good for Europe in the long term, I cannot say. I am sure, however, that, if we do not grasp this opportunity to bring about substantial change now, it may be many years before a similar opportunity recurs.
I believe this will result in the increased probability of people behaving like the French farmers, with all the risks for democracy that this presents. That is why I put my faith in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying for a long time, that we must bring about changes, and her views on these matters are not dissimilar to my own. I am confident that she will not disappoint me.

Mr. George Foulkes:: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) particularly after he has revealed something that we were all wondering—that is, who is the brains behind the Prime Minister.
I did not think that I would be replying to a debate on Europe and saying that I could agree with some of what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, particularly when he commented that changes on both sides of the House made this a less sterile and more constructive debate. That has, indeed, been the case.
I shall reply to as many of the points that were made in the debate as possible, and I hope that in so doing I shall set an example to the Economic Secretary, who will reply to the points that were made and answer the questions asked rather than read from a Treasury brief prepared some hours, if not days, ago.
The hon. Member for Southend, East agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), in itself a noteable change from previous debates, perhaps brought about by a combination of disillusion and realism. I appreciate why the Minister of State does not like our

amendment; he does not like us to draw attention to the fact that the Government's European policies are as bankrupt and disastrous as the policies that they have pursued in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Speak of the devil.

Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to see that the Minister of State has returned to the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is aware of the Government's policies in both areas and is aware of their bankruptcy in both. During (he past five years we have seen an increase in inequality, poverty increasing, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We have seen industry being destroyed—reference was made to the steel industry, but the same is happening to the coal industry—because of the policies being pursued by the Government both here and in Europe.
We have witnessed regressive, rather than progressive, policies. The deeds have not matched the words. We saw the Prime Minister being interviewed by Mr. Brian Walden and heard her frank admission, but we have seen this process even more in the European Community. Stridency and shrillness, which is what we get from the right hon. Lady, are no substitute for real action and urgency. Stridency and shrillness are not necessarily the best way to bat for Britain.
It is clear from almost all the contributions today—it is also clear from the choice of the Minister who will reply and from what the Prime Minister keeps talking about at summits and elsewhere — that the central issue is and remains the budgetary crisis and particularly the rebate or refund. It is on this issue that we expect some action arid urgency — not stridency and shrillness — outside the House. But no sense of urgency has been apparent.
I say without disrespect to the Minister who will reply, that he represented the Government at meetings of the Council of Ministers when the European Parliament decided to impose its veto on our refund. That was a matter of great importance to the United Kingdom. It was understandable that other Governments were not represented at the highest possible level. But we did not show the right sense of urgency in getting our refund in not being represented at a higher level. We should have had our big guns firing there, and then we might have got some alteration in the decision of the European Parliament.
It was pointed out earlier that we are now, in time, half-way between Athens and Brussels, and we wonder what prospect there is of success. What indications are there that agreement will be reached in Brussels when it could not be reached in Athens? [Hon. Members: "None".] My hon. Friends say none. I have been trying to discover the answer to that recently from reading various publications, including The Scotsman, one of the newspapers that I take regularly, as the Minister of State knows. I read:
EEC Foreign Ministers have, we are told, agreed to an eight-week timetable in which to lay the foundations for a new European Community before the Brussels summit meeting in mid-March.
How many times have we heard that? In reality there has been little progress. If we can believe our Foreign Secretary, it has fallen to him to
inject urgency into finding solutions to problems which have plagued the EEC for years.


Hon. Members saw him at the Dispatch Box yesterday. Would he inject urgency into finding solutions? The Opposition do not detect such urgency, and I doubt whether other people do.
Yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary what would happen if there was no payment of our refund by the end of March, which is the deadline. We received no answer, only the usual guff about taking appropriate action. It was a weak and pathetic response. We repeat the question tonight: what is meant by taking appropriate action? We ask the Government to pledge that if the money is not paid by the end of March, we will withdraw all or part of our contribution for this year. No less than an unequivocal pledge from the Minister on that will satisfy us that the Government is resolved and determined.
The Minister must beware of bargaining and of a tradeoff for an agreement. If the decision of the European Parliament is anything to go by, the sort of trade-off that it requires for an agreement to increase Community own resources would not be acceptable to the Opposition or to many conservative Members.
The Prime Minister has said on television and elsewhere, "We need the money, it is our money," but will the Minister tell us for what purposes the money will be allocated? Will he guarantee that the money will be used for new schemes to reduce unemployment or to combat poverty? Is it not more likely to be used to reduce the PSBR or to pay for the bombs that so delight Conservative Members? I doubt whether the money will be allocated for additional expenditure. The Government lack resolve, and are all talk and little action.
Many hon. Members mentioned the CAP, including the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I did him a disservice, yet he came back fighting, and the score on that battle was Truro 1, Ayrshire 0.
I have now solved the problem of the missing Members—the Euro-fanatics who have benefited so much from the European Community, especially the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who still benefits from it. If I had done the reading I should have done earlier in the day, and which the hon. Member for Truro could not have done, I could have quoted to him the headline in today's Glasgow Herald. It said,
Roy Jenkins fights for fossils".
We know, therefore, that he is doing something much more worthwhile than being here today.

Mr. Boyes: We should emphasise the fact that every party is unrepresented in the Chamber at times. Although I have not been in the Chamber all the time, I have never seen a member of the SDP here. Does my hon. Friend agree that their constituents should know that it is not enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at 3 or 3.15 pm, at prime time when all the press are present? Some hon. Members have to work on such debates. In view of the SDP position on the Community, would not my hon. Friend have expected an SDP representative to be here tonight?

Mr. Foulkes: In the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East, I shall be generous and say that we regularly see Conservative Members—too many of them — morning, afternoon, evening and early

morning. We regularly see members of the Labour party and the Liberal party here, but we do not see SDP Members regularly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) answered the questions on the CAP raised by Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister will be in no doubt about the strength of opposition to the oils and fats tax. I am not one of those who kow-tows to the United States—indeed, I have been critical of American action in Grenada and on many other issues—but there is no need for the oils and fats tax to aggravate our relations with the United States unnecessarily. Yesterday I talked to the American Under-Secretary for Agriculture, and it is clear that if the tax were introduced it would create much contention between Europe and America. It would cause havoc in some parts of America, and there is no guarantee that people would switch to eating butter simply because the cost of margarine was inflated artificially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) mentioned steel. The Government's record on steel is pretty poor—

Mr. Boyes: Appalling.

Mr. Foulkes: It is appalling, as my hon. Friend says. The British Steel Corporation has taken an absurd share of the cuts, with 45 per cent. of all steel jobs lost in the Community being British jobs. West Germany has lost only 20 per cent., and France has lost only 15 per cent. Britain is the only country that seems to take Community decisions seriously. Others seem to ignore them, especially the Italians. The Italians threatened to walk out of today's meeting on steel. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will not continue on the suicide trail of job cuts in the steel industry? We cannot continue to lose those jobs when other countries do not contribute their fair share to the European steel policy. That is not what the European Community should be about. As my hon. Friend for Sheffield, Central said, the position could become worse if America continues to find new ways of objecting to steel imports from the EC.
Unfortunately, it has been too easy for the Government, because of their doctrine of cuts in public expenditure, to accept the end of steel subsidies in the United Kingdom. Because of their blind adherence to their philosophy, they have failed to notice the hidden subsidies in other European countries. Coal is subsidised much more than it is in the United Kingdom, freight charges are subsidised in Belgium and Germany, and short-time working payments subsidise the steel industries of other countries. Subsidies in Britain represent only £11 a tonne; in Germany the subsidy is £15, in France it is £18, and in Belgium it is £19.
We need assurances from the Government that they will stand up for Britain on steel, not stridently but with action and urgency. On behalf of all my Scottish colleagues and my colleagues south of the border, although there always seems to be a predominance of active Scots in these debates, I seek a guarantee on the future of Ravenscraig. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is all right for the next two or three years; we need a long-term commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and others, who have a long and honourable record of being critical of the European Community, find it difficult to accept that from time to


time the Community suggests things that are beneficial to this country, especially when we have a Conservative Government and the European Community makes radical suggestions. Some of its suggestions are enlightened and can be used to encourage the Government to take a more enlightened attitude.
I was disappointed that one of my colleagues dismissed the social and regional funds as being of little importance. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, there is not enough money in the funds; resources should be switched from the agricultural sector—

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Member agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that if the social fund was much expanded, inevitably the EC institutions would want increasing control over the way in which the money was spent?

Mr. Foulkes: No, my hon. Friend did not say that. He advocated a switch, not an increase, in the resources from the common agricultural policy to the social and regional funds. Local authorities in Scotland and England have used money from the European Community to promote local employment initiatives. In the context of the huge number of unemployed, these are relatively small amounts, but they will be even less because of the domestic policies of the Government.

Mr. Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that the Government worked hard to secure a 50 per cent. increase in the social fund last year?

Mr. Foulkes: I shall leave the Government side divided; perhaps I am not sorry that I have brought about a division.
If the Government have their way on rate capping, the reduction in funds for local authorities will mean that the local employment initiatives that have been taken by local authorities will cease. Ironically, this will mean that our net contribution to the budget will go up and the deficit problem will become worse.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and his right, as a Socialist, to be in favour of lots more money being directed to lots more funds to be spent by lots more Government officials and civil servants, but surely he cannot expect a Conservative Government, who want to cut spending, subsidies, waste and bureaucracy, to be in favour of cutting Britain's expenditure and shoving more money into the Common Market.

Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who I knew would be helpful. He has served to highlight the difference that is inherent in the Opposition amendment between Conservative Members and Labour Members. Secondly, he has given me an opportunity to say that I am talking about redistributing the wealth that is available in the European Community. That is Socialism, and that is something of which my right hon. and hon. Friends are proud.
That brings me to the anti-poverty programme, which has received scant attention from the Government. The pilot scheme proved successful, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is aware of that in the area that he represents. I know that he will be disappointed by the lack of attention that it has received. The Government have not acted to try to ensure the continuation of the programme.
It would seem that there are two European Communities that are quite separate from each other. There is a real Community and an imaginary one. The Government believe in the imaginary Community in which agreements appear to be reached. They think that they have been reached, and we saw examples of this after the Stuttgart and Dublin meetings and on many other occasions. That is the Community of sweetness and light. There is the Community of progress, which is the imaginary creature of the Government.
The other Community is the one that we all know and which the people outside the House know. It is the Community of hi-jacked lamb, delay and procrastination. It is the Community of surplus and waste and crisis after crisis leading to deepening crisis as time passes.
We are asking the Government to come to terms with the real Community. We ask them to cast aside the shrillness and stridency of which the Prime Minister is so fond and to get down to some real action. We contend that policies that benefit the working people of Britain, whether they come from Westminster or Brussels, will come only after 14 June, when we return more Labour Members to the European Parliament.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is that the imaginary one?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my final remark. Such policies will be possible only when a Labour Government are returned to Westminster.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): This must be the first debate to take place in the House on the European Community in which all four Front Bench spokesmen have been Scots, although I accept that I am in exile for the time being. Nevertheless, I hope that our partners in the Community will accept that there is a canny team in the House of Commons dealing with Community matters.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that he would try to reply to as many of the points raised in the debate as time would allow. The debate has ranged so widely that it was impossible for him, as it will be for me, to deal with every issue. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said about mackerel boxes. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) talking about restraints of trade. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talking about dumped raspberry pulp. We had comments about the steel industry from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Those are all important matters, but I shall have to ask my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentlemen to accept that in many cases I shall have to deal with the matters by drawing them to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Trade and Industry, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
A number of issues were raised in the debate about the future of the Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked what would happen if and when the CAP ran out of funds. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend on this subject. The position is unprecedented, and if that were to happen we should be moving into uncharted territory. In such circumstances, all the member states would need to get together and discuss


how to deal with the situation. [Interruption] Opposition Members may find it funny, but if the CAP were to reach that point, it would be a most dramatic event and would help galvanise the Community into reaching decisions that have been deferred for far too long.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doone Valley asked me to say something about the oils and fats tax. I have no more regard for it than he does, and I can give him the assurance for which he asks.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke about—

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill-becomes right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to make fun of our discussions in the Community, because when they were in charge of the affairs of this country, and when they had discussions in the Community, they achieved absolutely nothing whatever?

Mr. Stewart: I agree that they stand condemned by their record.
The hon. Member for Livingston raised the question of the ESPRIT programme. Certainly, it is an important programme for the Community. However, although the German Government took an initiative in the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, they in fact proposed that, to be sure of funds being available for ESPRIT within the present 1 per cent. of the present VAT ceiling, other research and industrial support programmes would be held back. We would prefer economies to be made in the CAP to allow the ESPRIT programme to go ahead. However, we shall consider the German proposal carefully.
The hon. Member for Livingston also said that we were blocking the funds. That is not true. There is a provision in the 1984 budget, for which I voted in the early hours one morning in the Budget Council in Brussels, for the early stages of ESPRIT, and the full size and scale of the programme remained to be worked out.
A number of hon. Members asked about the international position of the Community. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) thought that the Community was being too soft. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central thought that the Community was too mild mannered with the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Halsowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was concerned about our trading arrangements with third countries. In all these ways, however, experience has shown during the past few years that the collective voice of the Community is stronger and more effective than the voices of individual Members would be on their own.
Several hon. Members asked about the ultimate future of the Community and mentioned federalism or a European union. If anyone is in any doubt about what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, he should read his speech in Hansard tomorrow. I am sure that his speech will not bear any of the interpretations which have been made today. Federalism is an extremely remote idea. Political union is far over the horizon and very likely to remain there.

Mr. Caborn: The important point concerned the European monetary system. I asked about it because the Minister mentioned it in an aside. Are the Government preparing the ground for us to join as a full member of the EMS?

Mr. Stewart: We keep our stance on the EMS under review. We do not believe now, nor have we believed in the past, that it would be appropriate for sterling, which is a petro-currency, to become a full member of the EMS.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Budgen: Is the Government's stance that they favour joining the EMS in principle but are merely waiting for a suitable time to do so?

Mr. Stewart: We keep the subject under review. I do not regard it as a matter of principle. It is a practical matter which must be decided on its merits.
Several hon. Members mentioned our trade with the Community. The proportion of our exports to the Community as against imports from it has been rising steadily. Between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of visible trade was covered in the early 1970s. That rose to more than 80 per cent. in the late 1970s and it has reached 90 per cent. in the past three years.

Dr. Godman: That is because of oil.

Mr. Stewart: That hardly seems to be an unsatisfactory trading record. Those who maintain that we are put at a disadvantage by being members of the Community must have overlooked the fact that, last month, we had a £700 million balance of payments surplus. I suppose that they blame that on the Community as well.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I am a searcher after truth. The Minister for Trade said recently that in 1972, the year before we joined the Common Market, we had 6·3 per cent. of Europe's market and that now we have only 6·1 per cent. of it. Therefore, our share of trade in manufactures is less than when we started.

Mr. Stewart: All countries, especially Britain, have many aspects to their trade which includes invisible trade as well as trade in manufactures. In the most recent report of the EC, Britain's economy is rated as the fastest-growing in the Community in 1983 and 1984. The arguments of hon. Members who have said that our membership of the EC has inhibited our recovery and economic development are disproved by the figures.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I have already given way too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) mentioned serious unemployment. All industrialised countries now face it. The only way in which to deal with it is to reduce inflation and to achieve industrial recovery


such as is now taking place. The Community has played its part. The social fund has contributed £1,000 million to the United Kingdom. Some of that money has been devoted to youth training and similar projects.
Many hon. Members asked about refunds and the budget. In the past four years we have achieved £2·5 billion-worth of refunds. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) should bear in mind the fact that that represents about 66 per cent. of our gross contribution.
We have had real refunds, and not imaginary refunds as the Labour party received. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked if we would deal—

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister said earlier that he would not give way.

Mr. Stewart: If I give way to every hon. Member to whom I refer in my winding up, I shall be unable to respond to the debate.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked for urgency, which we are applying, and for determination. To describe our approach as one of "taking the appropriate action at the right time" is correct. The circumstances which will develop during the next two months are at present hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether money received from the European Community would represent additional expenditure for this country. We would be unable to maintain domestic public expenditure at the current level if it had not been for refunds that we have obtained from our net contribution.
The serious issue of the Community's own resources running out has been discussed in the current negotiations. I have been asked on several occasions during the debate about the 1 per cent. ceiling on VAT. It will remain in place until there is a unanimous decision to the contrary by all member states. Before the ceiling could change in this country, a resolution would have to come before the House and the change could not become operative unless the resolution was passed.
As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government on many occasions in recent months, we do not believe that the case has yet been made out for an increase in own resources. We remain to be convinced of that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate just before Christmas that the onus is on those who want an increase to demonstrate the need and the case for it. Such a need cannot be considered until the Community takes far-reaching decisions about the new structure which is essential for its financial and agricultural policies in the coming years.
Of course, the CAP is in a serious state. It is reaching a point of crisis. It has been far too effective in the original objective for which it was established—to encourage the development of European agriculture. It is high time that major decisions were taken to deal not only with the general expenditure levels in the Community budget, but specifically with the CAP.
The hon. Member for Livingston discussed reform. I believe that the changes needed to deal with Community expenditure and with the CAP amount to a need for reform. We can see only as negotiations develop and as new decisions are taken what that means.
An increasing number of member states in the Community recognise that greater budgetary discipline is needed and that tighter control must be placed on CAP expenditure from this year. That is a great advance in realism.
We have proposed a strict financial guideline.

Mr. Cook: The Minister will be aware that the Government's position is that reform is one of the conditions for an increase in own resources. For the Minister to tell the House that reform to them means something to be decided as the negotiations proceed is unsatisfactory. Will he say what is meant by "reform" and recognise that this year's price freeze is because the EC is running out of money? If it is given more money, a price increase will result.

Mr. Stewart: That is why it is necessary to get strict control, be it a strict financial guideline or some form of variant which would have a similar effect. Of course. we need strict price control of the individual regimes, and the Commission's proposals this year recognise that. We also need a lasting system of control which will work down to the individual regime and cause changes in its structure.
We believe that revenue should determine expenditure and not the other way round. That is why we have also proposed a proper system to redress the imbalances between member states and their contributions.
Each of our proposals on the CAP and imbalances complements the other because control of agriculture expenditure would reduce pressure on the budget and a redistribution of the burden of financing the Community budget would cause those who are always beneficiaries to think much more carefully about the merits of increasing certain expenditure.
Some suggest that we could resolve the question of imbalances by developing new policies and by more expenditure on the regional and social funds. It is calculated that a 50-fold increase in the regional fund would be required to offset the present level of United Kingdom deficits caused by agriculture.
Fundamental changes are needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said, the crunch will come soon. The Council meeting at Athens was a failure in many ways, but it was a success in one sense. It brought home sharply to all member states the fact that unless major financial changes are made there is no way ahead.
The European Council meets in Brussels in two months time. No one can tell whether a satisfactory solution will be worked out on that occasion. By that time all the representatives and heads of Government will be much more aware of the impending financial crisis in the Community and that urgent steps are needed to deal with it.
It is a bit rich for the Opposition to suggest that the Government have lacked a sense of urgency and purpose in their dealings with the Community. At all stages we have tried to take a positive and constructive view of the development of the Community and at the same time to call the attention of other member states to the fundamental problems caused by the development of the CAP at the expense of other policies. There is agreement in many parts of the House about that.
We are also looking for other changes. We are looking for the creation of a genuine common market in goods and


services. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) referred to protectionism and customs barriers. They must be dealt with. Changes in transport policy and in financial services, particularly in the insurance market, are needed so that the European Community can provide a genuine common market between the member states—a phrase use when the Community was set up.
If we are preoccupied with the Community's financial aspects I fear that the way ahead will be sterile until we have resolved the problems. We have taken every possible step to convince our partners that new policies are important but that the funds for them cannot come out of a continuing escalation in the revenue that member states pay into Community coffers regardless of how expenditure is controlled.
It would make no sense for Ministers to return to their Parliaments to seek increases in European Community expenditure on a major scale when they are making every endeavour to control public expenditure within their own countries. That is why the future development of the non-financial aspects, of many of the special funds and other planned initiatives within the Community depend crucially on resolving the budgetary imbalance and above all, on establishing control of expenditure in relation to the budget and the CAP.
Reform of Community policies is needed on all those fronts. That is the purpose of the Government's efforts in all their negotiations with the Community in the last few months and years. We shall maintain our efforts. We would like to feel that we had behind us a House of Commons with an Opposition which took the subject at all seriously. Even by the Opposition's standards, their amendment is outstandingly daft. It reaches new depths of irresponsibility; it pays no attention to the Government's efforts over a wide front or to the negotiations that have been taking place and the efforts of Ministers in the individual councils of the Community to ensure a better deal for Britain.
It may be well to recall that in 1975 the then Labour Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, returned from what he described as the great renegotiation of the terms and condititions of Britain's membership of the European Community and said from this Dispatch Box:
The arrangements which the Community has now agreed would, if Britain remains a member of the EEC, give us an assurance of a repayment of hard cash if we found ourselves in the future paying an unfair share of the Community budget." —[Official Report, 12 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 511.]
How much did we get in hard cash out of the financial mechanism that the then Labour Prime Minister so proudly negotiated in 1975? We got not an ecu, not a penny, not a bawbee. Nothing returned to this country as a result of the much-vaunted renegotiation by the then Labour Government.
A number of hon. Members have said that sometimes the United Kingdom appears to be treated as an outsider, isolated from our colleagues. Nothing has done more to achieve that position than the record of prevacaration of Labour Members, both in Government and in Opposition. They have altered their policy on the Community faster than a crew in the boat race can paddle in and out. At one general election their policy is to stay in the Community; at the next it is to pull out.
I shall give a quotation that I recommend as required reading for anyone interested in the subject. It comes from the Labour party manifesto at the last general election.
The next Labour Government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies … For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain.
The Opposition said that only a few months ago. Is that still their policy? Do they still wish to take Britain out of the Community? Have they abandoned that commitment? If they have, have they abandoned the logic that by staying in the Common Market they will be abandoning also their radical socialist policies for reviving the British economy to which Britain's membership of the Community creates serious obstacles?
Not only have the Opposition already failed to spell out their policies on future membership of the EC, they have produced such a stream of conflicting statements from all their leading spokesmen that not even their own party members—let alone the House—can tell what they are trying to do. They should be judged on their record. When they had the opportunity to deal with these matters, they achieved absolutely nothing. It is approaching impertinence for them to come to the House and charge the Government—who have dealt seriously, effectively and successfully with EC matters during the past four years—with not being urgent and determined in their efforts to sort out the problems that the Labour party left behind. Had they done their duty when they were in power, we should not now be facing such difficulties with the budget.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government in their determined efforts to achieve a satisfactory result in the current negotiations and to reject the irrelevant amendment of the Opposition.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 312.

Division No. 144]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hoyle, Douglas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Caborn, Richard
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Robert
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, M.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, W. E.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Soley, Clive


Gould, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Tinn, James


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert






Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. Tom Clarke and


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Favell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Galley, Roy


Baldry, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Beith, A. J.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, William
Gorst, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Browne, John
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Hickmet, Richard


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Cartwright, John
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, T.
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dover, Denshore
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kennedy, Charles


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lang, Ian





Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lightbown, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lilley, Peter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Luce, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David John.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Maude, Francis
Spence, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spencer, D.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, John


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Moore, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Taylor, Teddy (Send E)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Terlezki, Stefan


Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Newton, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Norris, Steven
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Philip
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Osborn, Sir John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parris, Matthew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walters, Dennis


Penhaligon, David
Ward, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wheeler, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitfield, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Carol Mather and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Younger, Rt Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983, Cmnd. 9043.

European Assembly Elections

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
These regulations make detailed provision for the conduct of European Parliament elections in England, Wales and Scotland. The House will shortly be invited to approve the corresponding regulations for Northern Ireland. The effect of the regulations is substantially the same as that of the European Assembly Elections regulations 1979, which are revoked by article 7. New regulations are, however, necessary to take account of the various changes in electoral law since then, including changes in nomination procedures and the exclusion of Saturdays from the parliamentary elections timetable in 1981, new provisions for the voting rights of voluntary mental patients in 1982 and changes in the subordinate legislation made in 1983. In addition, the regulations incorporate some other changes which seemed desirable in the light of consultations with the political parties, electoral registration officers' representatives and local authority associations. The new regulations are expressed in terms of the consolidation of electoral law effected by the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Before I describe the changes in more detail it may be for the convenience of the House if I say something in general about the arrangements being made for the second general European Parliament election in June this year.
As hon. Members will recall, the first direct elections took place from Thursday 7 to Sunday 10 June 1979, with the United Kingdom voting on the Thursday. Under the Community legislation of 1976, the next elections fell to be held exactly five years later, from 7 to 10 June 1984. However, the Council of Ministers decided earlier this year that it was not possible to hold the elections during that period, which coincides with the Whitsun holiday in several member states. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, informed the House on 23 February last year, the Council originally proposed that the elections should be held from 17 May to 21 May 1984. After consultation with the Parliament, it was agreed that the period should instead be from 14 to 17 June 1984. My right hon. Friend has accordingly made an order fixing Thursday, 14 June 1984 as the day of election in the United Kingdom.
The other member states voting on Thursday will be Denmark, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland. France, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxemburg will vote on the Sunday. As in 1979, the votes cannot be counted until polling has closed in every member state. It is not yet clear at what time on Sunday, 17 June, this will be, but my right hon. and learned Friend will advise the political parties and acting returning officers as soon as the information is known. The regulations require the returning officer to begin the count "as soon as practicable" after polling has ended throughout the Community. It is up to him to decide whether it is practicable to begin on the Sunday evening.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend said a moment ago that Parliament was concerned.

I notice that the document is entitled the European Assembly Elections. Should it not be entitled the European Parliament Elections?

Mr. Mellor: I understood that my hon. Friend was one of those who said that it should be called Assembly rather than Parliament. I do not know whether he wants me to say that it should be Parliament in order that he can correct me, and then say it should be Assembly. I am inclined to leave the matter where it is, unless other hon. Members, apart from my hon. Friend, are acutely discomfited by the way the document is entitled.
I turn now to the regulations themselves. As in 1979, they apply, with modifications where appropriate, the corresponding provisions for parliamentary elections. The most significant "modification" is that, because of the size of European Parliament constituencies, the regulations provide for the appointment of a "verifying officer" whose task it is to ensure that the number of ballot papers forwarded to the returning officer tallies with the number which has been issued. In most other respects, however, the procedures for the conduct of the election are identical with the procedures at parliamentary elections.
Of the changes introduced by these regulations, the most significant is the extension of the timetable. Saturdays were excluded from the parliamentary elections timetable by the Representation of the People Act 1981, to reflect the fact that Saturday is no longer a working day for the local government officers who are responsible for the conduct of the elections. A similar change was made in the local elections and absent voting timetables in 1983. The new regulations, in order to be properly consistent, follow this change through by excluding Saturdays from the election and absent voting timetables at European Parliament elections. Under these regulations, therefore, the last day for the publication of the notice of election would be 2 May, the last day for the delivery of nominations, 15 May, and the latest time for the receipt of absent voting applications, noon on 30 May.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I well understand why these changes have been made, and they comply logically with what happens in the Westminster elections. However, it is my understanding that the exclusion of Saturdays from the computation of time for the nomination papers to be put in, and for the calling of the election, will put back those dates considerably, to the effect that nominations will be in the day before local elections. The consequence, as I am given to understand, is that political parties at that point will have to stop spending the money allocated to them for those elections by the European Assembly, and start spending their own money. This will mean a gap of something like nine days.
I understand that the Minister may not have been aware of that position. Indeed, I was not aware of it until early this evening. In the light of that, would he be prepared to take the problem away and look at it?

Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the matter in that way. Listening to what he says, I hope that it will prove to be not a material problem. I should like to have the option to look at it, and let him know the outcome after a chance to reflect upon. I am grateful to him for raising the point. We attach a great deal of importance — I think rightly — to consistency in electoral arrangements as far as possible. The reason for changing the regulations in this respect is that we should


comply with the changes that have already been introduced into domestic elections as a result of changes that have come about, and been approved by the House, since the last European Assembly elections in 1979.
The period during which the statutory restrictions on election broadcasts applies pending a European Parliament election would be increased from five to six weeks so as to take account of the timetable.
The limits on a candidate's permitted election expenses would be increased from £5,000 plus 2p for each entry in the register of electors, which is the present sum, to £8,000 plus 3½p per entry, taking account of estimated changes in the value of money between June 1979 and June 1984. Other smaller limits that are raised by the regulations are the maximum payment that an agent may make without obtaining a bill or receipt, which is increased from £12 to £20, and the maximum that an individual may pay without the agent's authorisation, from £3 to £5. The maximum personal expenses that a candidate may himself pay without going to his agent would be unchanged at £600. The level fixed in 1979 seemed generous and we saw no reason to increase it.

Mr. John Watson: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me, for I am confused by paragraph 3(8), which reads:
Any reference in the Regulations of 1983 or the Regulations (Scotland) of 1983, as applied by these Regulations, to any form identified by means of a letter other than the forms referred to in paragrph (7) above, shall be construed as a reference to the form so identified in Scheduele 3 to each of those sets of Regulations, as amended by Regulation 4 of, and Schedule 3 to, these Regulations.
I do not understand what that means and perhaps in the fullness of the debate my hon. Friend will illuminate the House.

Mr. Mellor: It seems to me a masterpiece of the draftsman's art, but I shall reflect on it so that in replying to the debate I may give my hon. Friend an even clearer account than the crystal clear account contained in the regulations.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has had one bite at the cherry already.

Mr. Marlow: This may be the wrong context in which to raise the issue, but I understand that a certain amount of money is being made available by the European Community for spending on these elections. May we know how much is being made available, how it is being allocated and to what extent it may be spent during the election campaign?

Mr. Mellor: Not without notice. If my hon. Friend tables a question I shall write to him. His question does not relate to these regulations, which are concerned only with arrangements by which we shall conduct those elections. That matter relates to the European Parliament and its own expenditure. If he wishes a reply to his question, he can have one in due course.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I will give way to my hon. Friend again, but I hope that his intervention is relevant to these regulations, rather than teasing me on issues which are not my responsibility.

Mr. Marlow: I have no desire, and never have had, to tease my hon. Friend. As this money will be available, can it be spent during the election campaign or must it be expended before that time?

Mr. Mellor: I answered my hon. Friend to the contrary, but he must pursue the question of the propriety or otherwise of these sums with others than me because while we in the Home Office have a broad back, so far as I am aware we are not accountable for the matter that he raised.
I hope that the House will agree that the changes that I have described are minor and uncontroversial and simply bring the arrangements for these elections into line with what we accept for United Kingdom domestic elections. We have sought the approval of the House as quickly as possible so that all concerned with these elections on 14 June will know well in advance the provisions under which they will be conducted.

Mr. David Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered the regulations applied in other European countries, whereby foreign nationals can vote in Britain for elections in their countries? Could we allow British nationals living in Europe to vote in our elections?

Mr. Mellor: That matter has been discussed, but, as far as I am aware, we have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. However, as I was able to make clear in October in Blackpool, we accept that there is a case for some British residents overseas to be able to cast their votes at home in both British and European parliamentary elections. We shall bring forward proposals based on our views, and on consultations with other parties, in a White Paper to be published soon. Although those changes will not come into effect in time for this year's European elections, we shall try to take account of the position of British residents overseas.

Mr. Ashby: Italy, for example, sets up polling stations in Britain. There is a station at Battersea town hall for Italian nationals. They need not cast their votes by post.

Mr. Mellor: Each country has its way of doing things. The method that would command more support in the House would be to permit some British nationals resident abroad to cast votes in what were their home constituencies, both for European and British elections. The House will have ample opportunity to consider that matter when the White Paper is published, prefacing legislation which we hope and expect to introduce in the next session of Parliament to deal with that and other important matters.
I commend the regulations to the House as a sensible way of bringing the regulations for European elections into line with those for British elections, and I hope that the House will approve them.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the Minister said, the regulations replace those of 1979 and consolidate the legislation on elections and the changes in electoral law and regulations since then. In the main, as he said, they are non-controversial and non-contentious and make few substantial changes. However, one substantial change, on which I intervened in his speech, is that of excepting Saturdays from the computation of time when determining the notice of elections and the submitting of nomination papers. I am grateful to the


Minister for the way in which he responded to my intervention, and for his assurance that he will consider the problem that I put to him, and report back to the House on his conclusions.
The problem is that excepting Saturdays will mean that the notice of election will be given on the day before the local elections on 2 May. That will have the inevitable result of preventing political parties from spending on elections money given to them by the European Assembly. It could also lead to confusion as to whether expenses incurred in elections are attributable properly to the European candidate or to the candidate standing in the local elections.
The real problem in relation to the regulations is not their substance, but whether they will apply to elections fought on the present European Assembly boundaries or on the new boundaries. It is this issue around which there is a great deal of doubt and confusion. The Minister should have been able to dissipate some of that confusion. To give an indication of the confusion that surrounds the issue I shall quote what the previous Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw, said in a written answer on 25 April:
The commission sees no prospect of completing its review in time for its recommendations to be implemented at the 1984 elections."— [Official Report, 25 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 212.]
Yet a few months later the Home Office in a press release announcing the regulations said:
If the commissioners report by the end of March there should be sufficient time to ensure that the elections are fought on the new boundaries.
Even if the commissioners for England, Wales and Scotland submitted their final reports to the Home Secretary by the end of March, there would be very little time left for political parties to select or reselect their candidates and for new parties to be formed in the new European constituencies. There will be a great deal of haste and confusion even if the timetable is met.
There has been no excuse for the delay that has occurred. We have known all the time when the elections would take place. It is not as if it was a general election about which there might be doubt as to the precise timing. We have known for years that these elections would take place at this time. Given that, it should have been incumbent on the Government to have made every effort to put at the disposal of the Boundary Commissioners the resources and the manpower necessary for them to carry out their job of ensuring that the elections were fought on the new boundaries.
Leaving that aside, let us assume that there are no substantial problems in the way of the commissioners. The revised recommendations of the English Boundary Commission for the English constituencies have been published only today. Even those are subject to substantial challenge and potential amendment. There are revised recommendations for only 16 constituencies, but some of those are substantial.
For example, the revised recommendations for Midlands West propose that Birmingham West is changed completely. It would lose Edgbaston, Northfield and Selly Oak to Birmingham East; Halesowen and Stourbridge, Warley, East and Warley, West to Midlands West. Again, only West Bromwich, East and West Bromwich, West are

left in the original constituency, to which are added Aldridge-Brownhills, Walsall, North and Walsall, South from Midlands West, and Ladywood, Perry Barr arid Sutton Coldfield from Birmingham East.
The mention of those constituencies demonstrates the substantial changes that the revisions are making in the boundaries and which therefore could give rise to objections.
Assuming that there are not substantial objections, in any event we have to wait the statutory period of a month for objections. If there are objections, inquiries may have to be held. In 11 of those constituencies no inquiry was previously held; therefore, the Commissioners would be obliged to hold an inquiry. They would have to go through the whole process of having to give notification, hold the inquiry, redraw maps, put out further revisions and recommendations, and wait a further month for new objections. Theoretically it could go past the 14 June deadline. Of course, this is before the final list would have been submitted to the Home Secretary so that he could lay the Order in Council that would require the approval of both Houses.
These regulations may not apply to the new constituency boundaries, the proposals for which could be prolonged by objectors from political parties. That is bad enough. It is absurd and unnecessary that so near the date of the elections we have got ourselves into that position. It is worse when the candidates, the parties and the electoral registration officers have to suffer that confusion and doubt.
If the position in England is complicated, difficult and potentially protracted, the problem in Wales is even more anomalous and absurd. I understand from the Welsh Commissioners—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Earnest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member must relate his speech to the regulations and not argue in detail about boundaries.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: These regulations are nothing if they are not applied to the constituency boundaries to which they are related. It is important to find out from the Minister whether the regulations will apply to the new or to the old boundaries. There is considerable doubt about that in the House and outside. We are looking for an assurance from the Government that we are giving our consent to regulations that will apply to the new boundaries. All that I am doing is describing some of the difficulties that could arise if the boundaries are not fixed in time.
The Welsh Commissioners tell me that they are informing interested parties by letter that they have at present no plans to re-write their provisional recommendations for Wales, but that if they later—"later" is their word— decide to do so the usual procedures will be followed. There is doubt about on which constituency boundaries the elections will be fought in Wales.
I should like the Minister to give us some assurance that the elections on 14 June will be fought under the regulations using the new boundaries. I am not sure what the Government can do. I am not sure that the Minister is responsible, but I am sure that the Government's job is to ensure that the confusion and doubt are dissipated and that any chaos that may result from having to fight the election on present boundaries is prevented. That can be done tonight by the Minister giving us a categorical assurance.

Mr. Robert Jackson: At the risk of inflaming debate, which would perhaps be difficult at this time, I should like to say a few words about the vexed question of nomenclature. The regulations refer to the European Assembly, but there is recurrent discussion in the House as to whether is should rather be called the European "Parliament".
The technical position is that the Treaty of Rome refers to an Assembly. It also provides that the Assembly shall be master of its rules of procedure. In 1960, when the European Assembly came into existence, rules of procedure were adopted by the Assembly which described itself as the "European Parliament". It has been so known ever since. That is why it is reasonable, I believe, for Ministers to refer to the European Parliament in their correspondence and communications, as they have since 1979.
It is often argued that the difference between a parliament and an assembly is that the one has powers and the other does not and that an assembly is not a representative body. That was true of the European Assembly, or the European Parliament, in the early 1960s. It had few powers and it was not directly elected. But that has now changed.
In 1975 this House, under a Labour Government, ratified amendments to article 203 of the Treaty of Rome to provide for the introduction of own resources for the budget, and to give the European Parliament powers to amend the budget, to increase expenditure within certain limits, and to reject the budget. In 1978 that was followed — again under a Labour Government — by a Bill providing for direct elections to the European Parliament.
The European Parliament has thus, in a measure, fulfilled the ambition of those who named it such in 1960. It has acquired real powers and it is now a directly elected representative body. Of course, the role of the European Parliament in the Community's constitutional system is radically different from that of this House in the United Kingdom constitution. One is based on a fusion of Executive and legislative powers and the other on a separation of powers, rather like in the United States. But I do not think that this constitutional difference is an adequate basis for differentiating between the concept of a parliament and that of an assembly.
The fact is that the European Parliament is now establishing itself as the "House of Representatives" of the European Community. And in my view those who oppose that tendency—I am not one of them—would do better to resist it, not by seeking to insult the institution in question, but rather by respecting it. I am sure that that is a much more sensible basis on which to confront a tendency or an institution that one in seeking to criticise.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who, I believe, represents the Thames Valley in the European Assembly or Parliament—alternative titles, both of which he has just referred to—made a sound point with which we on this Bench agree. Indeed, the argument about nomenclature, as between Parliament and Assembly, increasingly resembles those arguments about whether people should be called chairpersons or spokespersons or

chairmen or chairwomen. It is an obsession with nomenclature which escapes the real discussion and argument about substance.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who raised the vexed question of people living in Europe being unable to vote in this election, even although citizens of other European member states are able to do so. We have taken an excessively long time in this country to resolve that problem. It should not have been left so long. It would have been settled in time for these elections, if it had been dealt with earlier.
Before the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) gets too excited, I want to endorse what he said about the relationship of these regulations to the boundaries that are being applied. It is a matter of genuine concern, and the Government should make the situation much more clear.
However, my main comments do not relate to those matters. I have a simple and straightforward reason for wishing to oppose the regulations. Schedule 1 ofthe regulations applies to paragraph 18 of schedule 1 tothe Representations of the People Act 1983 to the European Assembly elections. The provision in the 1983 Act says that elections shall take place by the simple majority system. Without these regulations in this form, that would not be possible.
When this country entered the European Community, it committed itself to the treaty endorsed by the House that elections should be
by direct universal suffrage in accordance with the uniform procedure in all member states".
That has not yet been achieved. In my opinion, the British Government have not contributed a great deal towards its achievement. It would have been perfectly possible for this British Government — and, indeed, a previous British Government — to ensure that elections in the United Kingdom took place on a system which was comparable to that taking place in other member countries, and which was at least as fair. The Government should bring before the House regulations which achieve that. Instead, they propose to follow the example of the previous European elections, which took place on the system which these regulations apply.
What was the effect of applying that system? In the 1979 election, the Conservative party obtained 50·6 per cent. of the votes. It did rather well—rather better than it did at the previous general election. What was the result? It won 60 out of the 78 seats which Great Britain has in the Parliament. It is a ludicrously high proportion. In the same election, the Labour party also did very much better than it is doing nowadays. It obtained one third of the votes. It will be a long time before it does that again. As a result, it got only 17 of the 78 seats. The Liberal party stood in that election. We were not doing anything like as well as we are doing nowadays. We got 13 per cent. of the votes. For that, we were given no seats.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Beith: I want to develop my argument a little further and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
That is a quite ludicrous result, and bears no relation to the expression of opinion by the British people in that election.
In debating these regulations, we must consider how we can conduct elections based on them which fairly represent what the British voters do in the course of those elections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in these regulations that deals with the system of voting. We are not debating that issue tonight.

Mr. Beith: I cannot challenge the Chair, but I wish to draw attention to schedule 1 to the regulations which applies to paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Schedule 1 modifies parts of that Act, sometimes substantially, and does not modify other parts. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 is one part of the Act which schedule 1 to the regulations does not affect.Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 tothe Act says:
The votes at the poll shall be given by ballot, the result shall be ascertained by counting the votes given to each candidate and the candidate to whom the majority of votes have been given shall be declared to have been elected.
Doing that will ensure that any opinion which is spread evenly throughout the country to the extent of 49 per cent. can be unrepresented as a result of the election.

Mr. Marlow: Everyone is aware that it is open to the alliance to win 50·6 per cent. of the votes at the forthcoming election. If it does that, it may win 66 seats, as did the Conservatives at the previous election. Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman's only reason for moaning and whingeing is that he realises that the alliance will do appallingly badly at that election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that line of argument, I remind him that the House should address itself to changes in existing legislation which the regulations affect.

Mr. Beith: We are entitled to debate the ways in which the regulations make no change as that is specified in the schedule. The schedule contains a list distinguishing between provisions which are being modified and others which are not. It would make for a strange debate if I listed only those paragraphs which apply in modified form. If we apply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon.Gentleman that whatever the House decides will not affect what he is putting before us.

Mr. Beith: If the House voted against these regulations the Government would have to present others so that some form of election could take place.

Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. Gentleman is proud of his ability as a constructionist in these documents. Perhaps I can put him, and perhaps the rest of us, out of his misery. The proceedings about which he complains —the first-past-the-post system—do not derive from these regulations. Even if the minuscule numbers on the alliance Benches were enough to throw the regulations out, that would cause us little discomfort as the right derives from section 3 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little more carefully.

Mr. Beith: I am not prepared to vote for regulations which implement paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. I and my colleagues are entitled to say why. If we are not given that opportunity a substantial section of the

population will be denied a voice. I venture to suggest that I might have been able to deploy my case and given the House the opportunity of an early night had I not been interrupted.
If we apply the regulations as they are presented, we shall go through the machinery of an election which is conducted carefully. They contain the exact procedure by which the returning officer should count the votes and by which the marked register of electors at polling stations will be provided. I hope that I have your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am referring specifically to the regulations. They also contain copious references to how postal vote applications and proxy votes shall be dealt with. If we go through the regulations, satisfy ourselves and the electors that no one who casts a vote in conditions which are set down by the regulations has been subject to intimidation or corruption, take the ballot boxes which have been sealed in accordance with the set procedures, convey them to the appointed place and open them in accordance with the provisions set out in the regulations, we may as well throw them up in the air and pick out the first two or three and decide the representation of the parties on that basis. That would be as accurate a means of relating the number of votes cast to the number of seats won as would following the procedures set out in the regulations.

Mr. John Maples: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even with proportional representation, attendance on the alliance Benches would not be significantly different?

Mr. Beith: Only two Labour Members are present and only a tiny fraction of the Conservative party is here.

Mr. Roger Moate: The alliance is obsessed with the issue which is designed to benefit it, yet for most of the debate its representatives have been absent. When we debate the voting system, about which they feel hard done by, suddenly the alliance Members appear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will return to debating the regulations.

Mr. Beith: I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in some difficulty. I am seeking to remain within the rules of order. I must answer allegations that are thrown at me from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) obviously was not present in the Chamber or he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) speak at some length in the preceding debate. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West would have seen that I was present in the Chamber. He is making an absurd point.
I am trying to explain to the Government why the exercise of the detailed procedures set out in the regulations will be repugnant to anybody who has any respect for the good name of British democracy if, at the same time as applying them on a basis which is supposed to be a guarantee of fairness to the electorate, it is known that they will ensure that the votes are counted and arranged in such a way that the number of seats given to the parties bears no relation to them.
What effect does that have on our position in the European Parliament? It means that at present the Conservative party is ludicrously over-represented and the Labour party is grotesquely under-represented.
I look forward to my party winning 51 per cent. of the votes at the European elections—

Mr. Marlow: It will not.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Northamption, North (Mr. Marlow) has challenged me on this issue, and I must attempt to answer him. We could win all the seats. How can the hon. Gentleman claim from his rather curious and tortured view of the world that for one party to have 51 per cent. of the votes and all the seats in the European Parliament is a fair, reasonable or sensible arrangement?

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) agree that the important issue is not the number of votes gained but from where one gets them? The important issue in our system is who obtains the maximum number of votes in a constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging the historical system by which we have voted in this country for many years?

Mr. Beith: Yes, I am. I do so because the result bears no relation to the votes that are cast. That issue extends far beyond the European elections into Westminster and local elections. Anyone who pretends that the constituency arrangements to which the regulations apply have any connection with the relationship that an individual Member of this place seeks to maintain with his constituency does not understand the nature of that relationship. A constituency relationship in Westminster terms cannot be maintained in a constituency in which there are 500,000 people. It is absurd to claim that that can be so. The individual Member's constituency relationship must be of a quite different character.
There are Ministers who know that there was a better system and who voted for it. The underling of the Secretary of State for Scotland who is occupying the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, knows very well that his right hon. Friend voted for a much better system. I note that the Government are not introducing regulations that embrace England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They cannot do that because they have decided to have a completely different system in Northern Ireland, knowing it to be an infinitely better one which gives fair representation. They know that other countries in Europe are aware of just how evil it would be to try to distort the representation in Northern Ireland by the use of the system that is proposed, but the Government hope that they can get away with it in England, Wales and Scotland. But they will not get away with it, any more than they have got away with it so far in attempting to pretend to the countries of Europe that Britain's good name for democracy is being maintained by regulations of this sort, which appear on the surface of democratic procedures and fairness but which at root are as unfair as it is conceivable or possible to be.
Come election day, it will be the Labour party which will make the loudest complaints. It will suddenly find that it is at the wrong end of the British electoral system. I ask the Minister to consider the arguments now before the issue is influenced by any particular election results. If he seeks to apply these regulations, he will produce a system which will bring the British democratic tradition into disrepute in the European parliament and which will bear no reflection of the balance of opinion within the United Kingdom. We shall be, as we are now, the only member country which sends on the aeroplane to Strasbourg a delegation which bears no relation in its political composition to the country from which it comes.
This is something for which no reasonable man should be asked to vote, but that is the effect of the regulations. I ask hon. Members how they can pretend to developing countries and other countries that such procedures are a perfect expression of democracy when they produce the results that I have described.
There are many occasions when Members and the Clerks who serve us, and others, have occasion to deal with the representatives of other legislatures. They talk about and commend our procedures and explain our election rules. I have no doubt that copies of these election rules will be passed around the legislatures of other countries. They set out how matters can be arranged so that the ballot boxes can be sealed in the proper way, so that the returning officer's mark is put down in the proper manner, so it is known how properly to challenge a voter and so it is known how a blind person can vote. But none of these procedures guarantees that a fair result will be achieved at the end of the day.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the majority of systems in the world are conducted by the first-past-the post system or by the rather curious system that he suggests?

Mr. Beith: There are many countries within the majority of countries that are not democracies. We are talking about elections for the European Assembly or Parliament, and let us keep within the subject. The elections will be conducted in every other member state in Europe by a system which relates seats won to votes cast. The fact that that will not happen in Britain is a scandal. It is a deliberate attempt to distort the opinions of the British people, and one day it will rebound against the very people who are perpetrating the distortion tonight.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thought that we were to debate the regulations. If we are to have elections, we should have elections to govern them. We have the regulations and they seem to be legitimate and in order. I begin to wonder why there is a need for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to protest so much. Could it be that he anticipates 14 June already and, like the good excusists some members of his party are, is making excuses for losses before the race is won?
Whether we like European elections is irrelevant. We must run them by some rules, and it seems that these rules are the correct ones. If the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) had shown that somewhere in those rules there was some flaw or fault, we would perhaps have listened to him with greater attention. But the cause that he pleads is one that he should plead in another forum at another time.
I hope that the remainder of the debate will be confined to the regulations and the rules thereunder so that we can all reach a rational decision as speedily as possible.

Mr. Mellor: I had some doubts about whether, on a Thursday evening at past 10 o'clock, I would really enjoy the experience of proposing the regulations, but, owing to the virtuoso performance of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), it has been rather fun. The great tragedy is that, just as the hon. Gentleman is reaching the


zenith of his career, the BBC has chosen to abolish its old-time music hall programme, in which he might have found his true metier. As I listened to his extraordinary outburst, I thought once again of what Dr. Johnson said about the walking dog—the wonder is not that it is done well but that it is done at all.
The pleasure for those of us who decorate these Benches late at night is simply to see the Benches filled. It would be too much to expect that anyone speaking from the Liberal Benches could also talk sense at this late hour. If the hon. Gentleman were here more often at this hour, he might rise better to the occasion.
It is an effort to take seriously at least one of the hon. Gentleman's points. I refer especially to his point about the electoral system. We know that self-interest has brought the hon. Gentleman and his colleague here tonight—it is certainly not in the interests of anyone else. He is only too quick to condemn the system under which we have been content to run our elections for generations and which has survived successive Governments, and to embrace another system.
The Government are playing a full part in the discussions in Europe about a common election system. But the hon. Gentleman should be careful before he too warmly endorses the proposals. Is he really saying that if there ever were a Liberal Government—I know that that is a highly speculative subject to turn our minds to tonight—they would have bought the proposition from the European Assembly in 1982 that elections should be fought on the basis of multi-Member constituencies of between three and 15 Members on a list system?
I wonder how many people in this country would be content with elections run on that basis. It is wholly different from the link to which we are accustomed between a single Member and his constituents. I know that self-interest sometimes blinds us all to the deeper matters that are at stake, but there is something to be said for a system that links a Member with his constituency. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot reflect that.

Mr. Beith: Why, then, are the Government enforcing precisely the system that he criticises in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mellor: That is not a good point. If that is the full extent of the hon. Gentleman's reflections on Northern Ireland, it is as well that he is not the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland as well as on so many other matters.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a more serious contribution to the debate. I shall deal with two of his points before letting my hon. Friends go to their beds. He mentioned an important point about whether the timetable for the European elections and its coincidence with the local elections would cause any difficulties. I have taken some advice on that question, and I can confirm that notice of the European election will be published at least one day before polling day for the ordinary local elections. I am assured that that will have no effect on party political spending on either the local or the European elections. I will check again, and if I am wrong about that I will let the hon. Gentleman know. He raised the point in good faith and I want to deal with it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Boundary Commission. As he knows, the Government are not in control of the Boundary Commission, which has an independent statutory remit. Quite rightly, that remit is not subject to the direction of the Home Secretary, although

he has overall responsibility for such matters. The final report of the Commission will be addressed to him, and it will be for him to lay before the House the relevant orders that will allow the elections to take place on new boundaries, if the timetable permits and the representations received advise it.
The Boundary Commission itself decides the way in which it should operate, and the timetable will be controlled by its own judgment of what is possible. My right hon. and learned Friend is placed in a difficult position. He has a responsibility to give the House the best advice that he can, but he has no powers of direction. That is probably a good thing.
We have tried to inform the House, at different stages, of how we see the situation. For some months it has been our view that the Boundary Commission will be able to present to the Home Secretary, in time for him—given normal circumstances—to be able to lay the relevant orders before the House, proposals that would enable the June elections to be held on new boundaries. I understand that the commissioners have held all the public inquiries that the representations received required them to hold, and, as a consequence, have published revised recommendations.
The Boundary Commission for England has published revised proposals for 16 of the 66 constituencies in England this week and has invited representations upon them by 26 February. The Scottish Commission has adhered to its provisional recommendations for five of the eight constituencies and published revised recommendations for the other three on 15 December. The Welsh Commission has not so far issued any revised recommendations for its four constituencies. The commissioners should, therefore, be able to deliver their report to my right hon. and learned Friend by the end of March. It is not for my right hon. and learned Friend to anticipate what representations he may receive, but I am sure that he will want to deal as expeditiously he possibly can with the report because he believes it is his duty to Parliament to do so, not gratuitously to delay or expedite the recommendations but to deal with them as justice and their merit require.
The legal framework within which the European Boundary Commission operates is much more restrictive than that which applies to the Westminster Boundary Commission. Considerations such as community links, which caused so much difficulty and indeed distress to many hon. Members in relation to the Westminster elections, do not apply in the criteria for Europe. Accordingly, my right hon. and learned Friend would not expect any difficulties in laying the orders in time for the new boundaries to be in effect by the time of the election, assuming that the Boundary Commission keeps to its timetable of delivering the final recommendations to him by the end of March.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The House will welcome that important assurance and admission. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot give a concrete assurance—that is not wthin his control—but can he say something more about the Welsh Commission? He has told us that on the assumption that the Scottish, English and Welsh Boundary Commissions make their final recommendations to the Home Secretary before the end of March, we will be able to fight the elections on the new boundaries. I accept that that may be a fair assumption. The Minister


will know better than me, because presumably he is privy to more information than me. I should like to press him about that sort of information. To me, the Welsh Boundary Commission still suggested that it might wish to issue revised recommendations later. That is what is causing the worry and concern. Perhaps the Minister could shed a little more light on the matter. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has dealt with this sensitive and difficult issue. However, any information that he can give to allay the doubt and confusion would be welcome.

Mr. Mellor: I shall help the hon. Gentleman as much as I can. The Welsh Boundary Commission has not issued any revised recommendations. I understand that it is likely to adhere to the original proposals that it put forward. Obviously, if there is any more up-to-date information that I can give the hon. Gentleman, I shall write to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Bermingham: I should like to pursue further that timetable point. Under the system, I understand that once the 28 days start to run to 26 February, the Commission has the right to call for further inquiries depending on the volume of representation. Is the Minister prepared to concede on behalf of the Government that in the event of further inquiries or, as happened some 18 months ago with parliamentary boundaries, the commencement of a court action—I understand that there is some talk of that, although not from the Opposition—a clear indication should be given to the House that the existing boundaries will be fought on in order to end the uncertainty for candidates and parties?
Towards the end of March we begin to run into a timetable bottleneck and it is crucial that the parties and candidates know precisely upon which boundaries the election is being fought. Many of us are concerned about the short length of time available between now and 14 June.

Mr. Mellor: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it would not be helpful to comment on hypothetical circumstances. I have made my best endeavours to assist the House.
I am grateful, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to stray a little wider than the remit of the regulations so that I could answer the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed which plainly—as you indicated throughout his speech—somewhat strayed from order, to put it kindly. I should have liked to commend the regulations to the House in good time, but Liberal Members are up at a quite unwarrantedly late time of night for them, and so that they can divide the House, and so prove beyond peradventure to their constituents that they are in the House at this time of night—perhaps for the first time, for some of them, in the whole of their parliamentary careers—and still be at home, tucked up in their beds with cups of Horlicks and improving literature well before midnight, I shall conclude.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, particularly when he is

speaking from the Government Front Bench, to make factually inaccurate statements criticising another hon. Member, other than on a substantive motion, and without presenting any evidence whatever? After all, the hon. Gentleman's ministerial duties must often take him away from the House. Is it in order for him to refer to an hon. Member in that way when that hon. Member is scarcely absent from this building at any point in the week?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Every right hon. and hon. Member must be responsible for his own speech. I did not hear any unparliamentary language.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 9.

Division No. 145]
[11.18 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Amess, David
Needham, Richard


Ancram, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Ashby, David
Newton, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Norris, Steven


Baldry, Anthony
Oppenheim, Philip


Bellingham, Henry
Osborn, Sir John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Ottaway, Richard


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Parris, Matthew


Bottomley, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Powell, William (Corby)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Powley, John


Brinton, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burt, Alistair
Roe, Mrs Marion


Butterfill, John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Carttiss, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cope, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Couchman, James
Sims, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Dover, Denshore
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Dunn, Robert
Speed, Keith


Eggar, Tim
Speller, Tony


Evennett, David
Spencer, D.


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fallon, Michael
Stern, Michael


Forth, Eric
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ground, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Howard, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lang, Ian
Walden, George


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Watson, John


Maclean, David John.
Watts, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maples, John
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Whitfield, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Mellor, David
Wolfson, Mark


Merchant, Piers
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodcock, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Yeo, Tim


Mills, lain (Meriden)



Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. David Hunt and


Moore, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)







NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Beith, A J
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Carllie, Alexander (Montg'y)



Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Tellers for the Noes


Kennedy, Charles
Mr John Cartwnght and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr Michael Meadowcroft


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Stan Crowther be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and that Mr. Allan Rogers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

British Rail (Southern Region)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neabert.]

Mr. George Gardiner: I wish to raise the subject of British Rail services in the southern region.
Under this heading it would be only too easy for me to catalogue the long list of complaints from those obliged to use the railway daily to get to and from their work about the service provided, such as that in southern region's central division last year only 56 per cent. of peak time evening trains actually ran to time, that 23 per cent. were anything over five minutes late, or the complaints of lack of information to passengers when trains are cancelled, or of missed connections. With all this my hon. Friend must be all too familiar.
My purpose is rather to express the anger felt by very large numbers of British Rail's regular daily customers in many parts of the southern region over the curtailment of peak period services under the new timetable that British Rail intends to introduce next. May, and especially to draw attention to the utter inadequacy of the so-called consultations that have preceded it. The complaints spring particularly from the central division, within the triangle roughly defined by London, Chichester and Eastbourne, and from the south-east division, covering Kent and part of east Sussex.
In preparing my case I have received valuable help from the transport users' consultative committee, whose members are amazed by the manner in which British Rail has set about this exercise. I have also had discussions with southern region's deputy general manager and with the chief passenger manager. I appreciate their problems, not all of their own making. I appreciate that they have to work within certain financial constraints, though I would have thought they would increase their share of the commuter market by improving peak period services, not by making them worse. I applaud them for going all-out to capture the bulk of the growing London-Gatwick market, but not for doing so at the expense of their regular daily travellers.
In giving some examples, I start with my own constituency. In 1981 three peak period through trains ran from Reigate to London bridge. Suddenly, at only five days' notice, they were withdrawn, so that extensive resignalling and track-laying work could be undertaken. The promise was given that they would be restored in 1984, when this work was completed. Indeed, I have a letter from southern region's general manager assuring me
that if work on the two schemes progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in 1984.
Many other peak period trains passing through east Croydon were affected, and British Rail produced a special leaflet promising "a better, modern railway" in 1984. What sad reading this leaflet makes today. Of those three Reigate-London bridge trains, only one is restored, and that at a time too late to help most London bridge commuters. A through train is added to Victoria, but on BR's own figures the numbers using this from Reigate will be about 16.
A similarly sad tale comes from Dorking, where two morning fast trains to Victoria—trains so popular that often there is standing room only—are to be withdrawn completely. Slower trains are substituted, turning a


36-minute journey into one of 52. Even worse hit are commuters from Canterbury west to Charing Cross. For them a peak journey time of 91 minutes is extended to 123.
These are but stray examples. Commuter services on other principal routes are curtailed too. Fifteen minute frequencies are reduced to 20, 20 minute frequencies to 30; more changes become necessary to get to and from work, with more risk of missed connections. "A better, modern railway" indeed!
Then what about BR's flagrant breach of faith over the closure of Coulsdon north station last October, for which consent was obtained from the Secretary of State on the clear promise to provide nine Victoria trains, morning and evening, from nearby Smitham? These promised services ran erratically for three weeks, then two were withdrawn. Now, under the new timetable, they are further reduced to four trains in the morning rush, and three in the evening. The chairman of London's TUCC rightly describes this as an
unprecedented disregard for the public inquiry procedure laid down by the 1962 Act.
I come to the fundamental question of consultation, which, in the preparation of this new timetable, has been almost non-existent. I do not know whether the top management of BR understands how basic the pattern of commuter rail services is to many people's lives. For example, four peak period trains used to run each morning from Earlswood, in my constituency, to Victoria, so that many who needed to travel daily to Victoria bought houses there. If they had needed to get to London bridge, they would probably have gone somewhere else. Yet suddenly, at the start of this month, they learn—not by published statement but through press leaks—that from May they are to get only one direct train to Victoria and two to London bridge. When they raise their voices in protest they are told that they are too late.
BR is under a statutory obligation to consult two groups, the transport users' consultative committees and the county councils. Let us consider how the relevant TUCC was "consulted" in this case. The first notice that some strategic changes would take effect in May 1984 was given early in 1983. In September, BR met the TUCC and gave incomplete information on changes to be made to the central division services. Not until last November was the TUCC sent the entire proposed timetable, yet the management of BR tells me that it was in November that it had to be sent to the printers. Two days ago the secretary to the TUCC told me that it had still not been given details of the new south-east division suburban services, though it would seem that they are now being set in type. Is there not something quaintly old fashioned about a timetable to take effect in May being sent to the printers in November? BR's adverts tell us that this is the age of the train. Someone should tell BR that this is also the age of computer type-setting.
Meanwhile, county councils were "consulted" in the same way, but under cover of confidentiality, which means that they had no way of discovering commuters' reaction to the proposals. British Rail tells me that it also "consulted" the various commuter associations, but again on the apparent understanding that its proposals were not communicated to the local press. The bizarre reason

offered for this is that publicity might frighten other commuters lower down the line. Again, the customer learns nothing until the changes are a fait accompli.
I put it to the Minister that there must be a better way than this for British Rail to establish the real needs of its daily customers. As a process of so-called "consultation", it is a farce. Is it too much to ask British Rail to reveal its proposals, openly and fully, at least four weeks in advance of final decisions being taken and the timetables being sent for printing? Why not publish them in London in The Standard and in local papers too? If it also published the changing commuter patterns revealed by its three-yearly origin-destination surveys, discussion of what would be the most popular, and therefore profitable, peak period services would be properly informed.
British Rail must stop shutting its customers out of the consultation process. I urge the Minister to take steps to ensure that rail commuters are treated with greater consideration in future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) told the House about the rail services in his constituency. I understand the concern that his constituents and other British Rail passengers feel if the level of service that they have been used to is changed, and I am sure that they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern in their interest and for raising this matter.
However, I should make it clear at the outset that the level of service on routes, and the timetabling of services, are matters entirely for the British Railways Board. Ministers have no power to intervene. Nevertheless, I shall take the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.
The Government have set broad strategic objectives for the Railways Board. That is our principal task. We have made it clear that we consider that an efficient railway has a vital role to play in the transport system, and that we fully recognise the social value of rail services. That is reflected in the large public service obligation grant paid by the Government to British Rail to support those passenger services that cannot be operated on a commercial basis and that will continue to require subsidy. This year the cash limit on the PSO grant is £865 million—a substantial sum by any reckoning. About one third of that is likely to go to support services in London and the south-east.
Press reaction to the changes proposed for May 1984 has perhaps left some people with the impression that a completely new and radically reduced service is planned. In fact British Rail plans a reduction in loaded train miles over the entire passenger network of less than 1 per cent. In London and the south-east, where the main impact of the changes fall, the reduction is only 2 per cent.
What are the reasons for the changes? British Rail says that they are a response to changes in travel patterns, which in turn reflect changes in population and employment in the south-east. The Railways Board has also described the changes in the 1984 timetable for southern region as a further stage in its response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, whose report on London and south-east commuter services published in October 1980 urged a review of all services to avoid duplication and to ensure that the best use was made of the resources available.
The initial aim, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) set British Rail in 1981—it is still appropriate today—was broadly
to maintain the present extent of services, while adjusting service levels to changes in demand, and to meet as far as possible customers' preferences.
Against this background, it seems inevitable that some services need to be adjusted—both peak and off-peak. Services have been reduced where demand has fallen and where, in BR's view, the existing service frequently no longer provides value for money. Elsewhere, where demand is high or likely to increase, improvements are planned.
I have already explained that the level of service on routes is something for the Railways Board to decide, using its judgment of market demand. I know that my hon. Friend had a meeting earlier this week with the deputy general manager of BR's Southern Region. I am sure he will have been able to answer many of my hon. Friend's questions, and provide examples of how services have been adjusted to respond to market conditions or to get a more efficient use of resources through alternative routeing or connections.
Perhaps the main improvements in the southern region is the introduction in May this year of a new non-stop 15-minute interval rail-air link service between Victoria and Gatwick. The coaches used will be specially adapted mark II coaches providing a high quality service designed to maximise BR's share of the expanding traffic through Gatwick airport.
It may be helpful if I outline some of the service changes that will take place in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that not all of them will be welcome, but, equally, the news is not all bad, and perhaps we should view the matter in the round. I shall discuss Redhill, Horley, Reigate, and the points made by my hon. Friend about Coulsdon north station.
At present more than 200 trains a day stop at Redhill. By any reckoning, that is a lot of trains. In the peak hours there will be several service alterations, but British Rail is confident that the revised service will be enough to meet the demand. Off-peak, the through services to London will be reduced from five trains an hour to approximately one every 15 minutes—with respect, that is hardly a poor service. That is a consequence of revisions to the Gatwick service, which will provide the improved service that I mentioned. Many people will welcome that improvement. In addition, Redhill will continue to be served by trains which terminate at east Croydon.
Horley will retain its existing pattern of peak services. It will lose one off-peak service an hour to London, but BR will restore the half-hourly off-peak service to Redhill. I understand that Horley residents' association told Surrey county council that it was satisfied with the proposals.
I come to the position of Reigate last because the situation here is more complicated. When British Rail began the Brighton line resignalling scheme in 1981 it withdrew three trains which previously ran from Reigate to London bridge in the morning peak, to which my hon. Friend referred specifically. I understand that when the new timetable takes effect in May, Reigate will have two through trains to London in the morning peak—one to Victoria and one to London bridge. In the evening peak there will be three through trains, all from London bridge. I am told by British Rail that when the three morning peak hour services to London bridge were withdrawn in 1981,

it undertook to consider reinstatement of all three services by 1984. I understand that the deputy general manager of southern region wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 October 1981. My hon. Friend said that promises were given and broken. I hope that he will not mind if I refresh his memory. The letter said:
I can assure you that if work on the two schemes"—
that is, Victoria and Brighton line schemes—
progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in May 1984.
However, in revising the timetable British Rail has concluded after due consideration that to reinstate all three services would not be the most appropriate use of its resources. It believes that the alternatives available still provide an adequate service for Reigate commuters. These are, of course, operating decisions for BR and ones in which it would not be right for the Government to intervene directly. The good news—again it is British Rail's decision, not the Government's—is that Reigate will benefit from a new hourly off-peak service through to Charing Cross. My hon. Friend can rest assured about that. I also repeat the assurance I gave earlier that the points he made will be drawn to the attention of those responsible in the railway.
My hon. Friend raised the question of consultation on service changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is also in the Chamber. I know that the matter causes him concern as well, and he has suggested that it should be brought to the attention of British Rail. I have undertaken to do that. He believes that the timetable should be discussed with Members of Parliament as it affects their constituencies.
It may be helpful if I explain. The process of revising a timetable is a long one and it involves consultation with transport users' consultative committees, county councils and commuter groups. I understand that in most cases the county councils consult district councils and often even parish councils. It is a two-stage process. As soon as it can, British Rail circulates plans for routes and service frequencies. In the case of the 1984 timetable for southern region this was done on 24 June 1983. The counties in turn circulate the information to district and parish councils, but until the flesh of actual timings is put on, as well as route specifications, it is difficult for local authorities to make detailed comments about connections with bus services and the like.
The second stage is to circulate draft timings for the services, but it takes BR some time to develop its proposals to this degree of detail; in this case these were not available until September 1983. So there is not a great deal of time for further detailed consultation before the timetable plans have to be firmed up by British Rail. Again I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about the timescale to cover printing and so on. I shall discuss that point with the board. However, suggestions come up as a result of such consultation and BR takes account of the suggestions. In the case of the 1984 timetable I understand that a number of very useful suggestions were made during the consultation and the original proposals were amended to take account of them.
I hope that what I have said and what my hon. Friend has heard from the deputy general manager of BR's southern region illustrates how the 1984 timetable has developed in response to changes in demand. By


improving the match between supply and demand BR will be able to improve the efficiency in its operation, making room for improved standards of service and new investment, and reduce the cost to the taxpayer. As I have made clear, however, I am by no means complacent and I must draw the attention of the House to the quite proper division between the responsibilities of BR and those of Government.
Substantial investment is taking place in the southern region, designed to improve services on the commuter network. Smaller scale investment also takes place all the time to improve information facilities for passengers, to improve standards of cleaning trains and to carry out improvements to stations and station facilities, all of which are important for the customer.
In replying to my hon. Friend I have tried to put the 1984 timetable into the broader context of the railway passenger business, operated within the framework of the broad strategic objectives set by the Government and in accordance with the board's own target of good quality service to its customers at less cost to the taxpayer. BR's chairman has said that the task for BR in 1984 is to
win the confidence of more and more customers".
Inevitably, this means adjustment, balancing improved services for one lot of customers with some lessening of service elsewhere to make room for that and to reflect changes in demand. My hon. Friend may be assured that that is a continuing process and I am sure that in the light of what he has said today BR will continue to consider the points that concern his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o' clock.